Re: The future of DT binding maintainership

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:34:49 -0500, Jon Loeliger <jdl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > Is there a schema out there in the wild that exemplifies what you mean?
> > 
> > Not really. The format of schemas is currently in design stage. I'm 
> > currently rethinking some details of what I have in my mind. Give me some 
> > more time and I will post an RFC to the ML with all that written down.
> 
> ...and...
> 
> > > The schema-check idea reminds me of the W3C HTML validators:
> > > 
> > >       http://validator.w3.org/
> > > 
> > > Since device-tree source looks a bit like XML (or maybe more like JSON),
> > > will be the schemas be similar in spirit to DTDs, and is it helpful to
> > > think of the validator in this spirit?   Or will the checker be more
> > > like "gcc -Wall", since it will be invoked by a compiler?
> > 
> > My idea is to implement compile time verification in dtc, so I guess it 
> > will be more like the latter. Since dts is what dtc can already parse, my 
> > plan is to keep the schemas in spirit to dts, just modifying/extending it 
> > to allow specifying bindings with them, rather than static values.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Tomasz
> 
> It is possible to add some-damn XML DTD parsing and

/me runs screaming.

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/