From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwmw2@infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:16:39 +0100 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726080115.GA5436@netboy> <1374831744.2923.42.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20130726130927.GC4219@netboy> <20130726132709.GH29916@titan.lakedaemon.net> <1374846070.14574.92.camel@i7.infradead.org> Message-ID: <1374848199.14574.103.camel@i7.infradead.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 10:14 -0400, jonsmirl at 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. Yes, that seems eminently sensible. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse at intel.com Intel Corporation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5745 bytes Desc: not available URL: