On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:38:07AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
Hi Laurent,
Thanks for reviewing the patch
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 19:08 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Ricardo,
Thank you for the patch.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:23:56PM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
Make the ports node optional, since there are some DTs that don't define any ports for ti,tfp410.
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Cañuelo ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com
Shouldn't we fix those DTs instead ? What's the point of a TFP410 without ports in DT ?
This comes from the discussion in the previous version of this series.
In the DTs that don't define any ports (it's dove-sbc-a510.dts only, actually) it's not clear how to define the ports (I'm not familiar with this board). Initially I defined a set of empty ports just to comply with the binding requirements, but Rob suggested that we might as well declare them as optional, since having an empty port definition with no remote endpoints is no better than having no ports at all.
I did? Must have missed some context.
I understand both opinions but I just don't know which is the best option at this point.
Just leave the warning to be fixed.
Rob