lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: The future of DT binding maintainership
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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-23 18:42    [W:0.052 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site