Messages in this thread | | | From | Grant Likely <> | Date | Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:28:15 -0600 | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] |
| |
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, jonsmirl@gmail.com <jonsmirl@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.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. >> >> 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. > > Making it part of dtc is a required feature as far as I'm concerned. > Using XML/XSLT and dtc-integration are not mutually exclusive, but I > digress.
Oops, ignore the XSLT bit. XSLT isn't schema and has no bearing on the discussion of schema. Sorry for the noise.
g.
| |