lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
From
Date
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 10:14 -0400, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yes, yes - that's why the schema should be written down and used as a
> validation input to dtc. Then dtc can spit out errors for non-standard
> items. There would be two versions - the standard one and a legacy one
> that includes the standard one plus the hacks that can't be undone.
>
> But more importantly it provides a framework for people creating new
> node definitions. Now they can't work in a vacuum and come up with
> random names and structure for everything.
>
> Most of the problems express in the thread would go away if the schema
> was written down and discussed. The rule going forward would be no new
> nodes that aren't part of the standard schema.

Yes, that seems eminently sensible.

--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
[unhandled content-type:application/x-pkcs7-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-26 17:01    [W:0.180 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site