linux-kernel - Re: The future of DT binding maintainership

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130724202847.2BD753E14AB@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:28:47 +0100
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
	"Chaiken, Alison" <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: The future of DT binding maintainership

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:55:10 -0700, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 02:57 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Monday 22 of July 2013 16:34:49 Jon Loeliger wrote:
> 
> >>> My idea is to implement compile time verification in dtc, so I guess it
> >>> will be more like the latter. Since dts is what dtc can already parse,
> >>> my plan is to keep the schemas in spirit to dts, just
> >>> modifying/extending it to allow specifying bindings with them, rather
> >>> than static values.
> 
> > Things start to become fun when you get to bindings like regulators or 
> > clocks, when part of the binding is defined on generic level (-supply, 
> > clocks, clock-names properties) and remaining part is specific to device 
> > (XXX in XXX-supply, count and order of clocks and clock-names, strings 
> > allowed in clock-names property). This kind of inheritance is likely to be 
> > the biggest troublemaker.
> 
> It's good you mentioned inheritance here. I believe that's one of the
> key things. For example, the Tegra GPIO controller's binding is-a
> GPIO-controller, and is-an interrupt-controller, and I imagine any
> successful DT schema definition would very explicitly include that
> information. Likewise, other nodes may be is-a GPIO-client (many times,
> each parameterized with the property name that defines which GPIO you're
> talking abot), and also may be is-an interrupt-client (with a similar
> comment), etc.

+1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/