On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:53:01AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 07:46:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I would expect we can get a long way in the DT by doing a pass over the > > tree and adding links between device nodes in cases where phandle > > references exist. There is a potential issue with circular links which > > I'm just going to handwave away right now but I'd expect that to help > > otherwise. > But I didn't think FDTs encoded type info. So you don't really know > whether a phandle is a phandle -- it's just an int (which happens to > have a corresponding property in some other node). Are we trusting our > DT bindings well enough to say that, for example, we know that in any > given device node, a property like 'pwms' must be a phandle to a PWM > provider? OK, maybe 'pwms' is a bad example (it's unlikely to get > reused, and it has a companion '#pwm-cells' property), but grepping the > DT bindings directory shows a ton of one-off properties that contain > phandles. If we're going with the 90% thing we can probably get a long way with a whitelist of properties, and we'll be able to take that a lot further with the validatable schemas if they ever happen.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature