[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51F640EA.7040509@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:16:10 +0200
From: "Arend van Spriel" <arend@...adcom.com>
To: "jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
cc: "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"Ian Campbell" <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
"Pawel Moll" <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
"Stephen Warren" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Richard Cochran" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
"Tomasz Figa" <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"Domenico Andreoli" <cavokz@...il.com>,
"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"Dave P Martin" <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have
people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
On 07/29/2013 11:19 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 07/27/2013 10:01 PM, jonsmirl@...il.com wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely
>> <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel
>>> <arend@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>>> Let's see how many people go and scream if I say this: Too bad .dts
>>>> files
>>>> are not done using XML format as DT bindings could be described
>>>> using XML
>>>> Schema.
>>>
>>> Draft an example and show us how it would look! :-) There is
>>> absolutely nothing preventing us from expressing a DT in XML format,
>>> or even using XSLT to define DT schema while still using our current
>>> .dts syntax. It would be trivial to do lossless translation between
>>> .dts syntax and xml.
>>>
>>> The problem that I have with XML and XSLT is that it is very verbose
>>> and not entirely friendly to mere-mortals. However, I'm more than
>>> willing to be proved wrong on this point.
>>
>> I considered this approach a while ago and discarded it. It would work
>> but it is just too much of a Frankenstein monster.
>
> Ah, but he is so cute. At least I do not think it is more monstrous as
> the bindings files. I just browsed through a couple of arm binding files
> as I felt challenged to come up with an example. I did not get the
> impression that there is some kind of template in place to get consitent
> bindings descriptions.
>
>> Much cleaner to modify dtc to take a schema as part of the compilation
>> process. The schema language itself has no requirement to look like
>> DTS syntax. Whoever wrote dtc probably has a favorite language that
>> would be good for writing schemas in.
>
> Not sure if I can follow here. I guess you mean the dts compilation,
> right? There are tools freely available to validate XML files against
> XSD specification files. As an example libxml2 has support for it. I
> suspect it is not desired to have a dependency for DTC with an
> out-of-tree library, but it could be incorporated and have DTC spew the
> validation results.
crap. Probably not as libxml2 has MIT-license.
Regards,
Arend
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists