On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:39 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstr...@baylibre.com> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > You forgot linux-amlogic in CC... > > On 03/12/2018 22:32, Rob Herring wrote: > > Convert Amlogic SoC bindings to DT schema format using json-schema. > > > > Cc: Carlo Caione <ca...@caione.org> > > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khil...@baylibre.com> > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > > Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> > > ---
[...] > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - amlogic,s400 > > + - const: amlogic,a113d > > + - const: amlogic,meson-axg > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - amlogic,u200 > > + - const: amlogic,g12a > > but all this feels wrong for me. > > First of all, this yaml description is not human friendly and not intuitive > at all, > and secondly with this conversion we loose all the comments about the SoC > family relationship > with the compatible strings ! > > I really understand the point to have automated verification, but really it's > a pain to read > (I can't imagine newcomers... the actual DT bindings are already hard to > read...) and > I feel it will be a real pain to write ! What do you suggest that would be easier? Is it the YAML itself or the json-schema vocabulary? For the former, we could use {} and [] to make things more json style. But I imagine it is the latter. There is some learning curve for json-schema and is certainly a concern I have, but there would be a learning curve for anything. Our choices are use some existing schema language or invent one. All the previous efforts (there's been about 5 since 2013) have been inventing one, and they've not gone far. There will be far few resources available to train people with if we do something custom. > Can't we mix an "humam text" with a "yaml" part on a same document ? we are > in 2018 (nearly 2019), > and it should be easy to extract a yaml description from a text document > without pain and > keep all the human description, no ? Yes. Please go look at the annotated example in patch 2. > What will be the case for all the bindings with ASCII art to describe the > architecture of the > HW ? will you simply drop it to replace it with cold yaml description ? No, you can have literal blocks and/or comments with however much description you like. In fact, there's some notion to write the descriptions in sphinx and extract them to generate documentation, but that's a ways off. That's just the extent of what is possible. Rob