Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:16:39 +0100 |
| |
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] | |