On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:14:32AM -0400, jonsm...@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. > > So this is why I'm seeing patches just a short time ago removing existing > compatible strings from the DT descriptions and associated driver, and > replacing them with new ones... meaning that the old DT files won't work > with newer kernels. > > What that means is using the descriptions as the schema won't catch that > because they're changing those as well to match. > > There's a solution to that: dtc becomes a separate project external to > the kernel which also contains the schemas that it verifies against. > That way, if you want to make changes such as that above, you need to > get it past not only kernel people but also past dtc maintainers - > which increases the chances of such stuff being caught.
+1 dtc has always been a separate project that happens to be mirrored in the kernel tree, but the bindings need to come out be turned into schema that can be validated. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/