Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have peopleinterested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

[Ming Lei]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:14 PM, jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx <jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

+1.

If we want to keep the schema stable, it has to be defined and described
explicitly with one language, just like syscall ABI: C type/API exported to
userspace header file.


Thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
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/