On 4/1/22 19:34, Rob Herring wrote:
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.
I would likely opt for the OF graph in all cases, panels, bridges, controllers. Then it would be consistent.
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.
Maybe we would start requiring that port even for simple panels ? The port is physically there on that panel after all.
[...]