Re: The future of DT binding maintainership

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:55:10 -0700, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/