On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 03:22:19AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 4/1/22 01:52, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:48:23 +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
MIPI-DSI devices, if they are controlled through the bus itself, have to be described as a child node of the controller they are attached to.
Thus, there's no requirement on the controller having an OF-Graph output port to model the data stream: it's assumed that it would go from the parent to the child.
However, some bridges controlled through the DSI bus still require an input OF-Graph port, thus requiring a controller with an OF-Graph output port. This prevents those bridges from being used with the controllers that do not have one without any particular reason to.
Let's drop that requirement.
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime@cerno.tech
.../devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/chipone,icn6211.yaml | 1 - .../devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358762.yaml | 1 - 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
I tend to agree with port@0 not being needed and really like consistency.
The consistent thing to do would be to always use port@0 and OF graph, no ?
I guess it depends how wide our scope for consistency is. Just DSI bus controlled bridges? DSI panels? All bridges and panels? Any panel without a control interface has the same dilemma as those can be a child of the display controller (or bridge) and not even use OF graph.
All simple panels don't require 'port' either. That's presumably only consistent because we made a single schema. I'd assume 'non-simple' panels with their own schema are not consistent.
Rob