I'm putting together a device tree for a new platform and when looking
at the other trees everything is kind of chaotic in regards to the
various subsystems.
Is the existing DT include mechanism powerful enough to describe
generic fragments? And we're just missing the core fragments for
generic SP
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:55:15 -0400, "jonsm...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> I'm putting together a device tree for a new platform and when looking
> at the other trees everything is kind of chaotic in regards to the
> various subsystems.
>
> Is the existing DT include mechanism powerful enough to describe
Check out the XML schema stuff but another possibility is simply
writing our own schema validation tools based on the existing DT
syntax. What device trees really need is a schema language, how we
achieve it doesn't really matter. A custom Perl app might be better
in the Linux kernel world than v
i2c provides an example of where a schema would be useful.
>From the binding text files, I removed the common items
fsl-i2c
i2c@1740 {
clock-frequency = <10>;
fsl,timeout = <1>;
};
samsung-i2c
i2c@1387 {
samsung,i2
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> i2c provides an example of where a schema would be useful.
> From the binding text files, I removed the common items
Another reason for schemas, I just misspelled an attribute. It took me
several hours to figure out why my system wasn't
