Hi Marek,
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:18:11AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 10/18/21 9:57 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi,
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml index 1faae3e323a4..708de84ac138 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml @@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ properties: - port@0 - port@1
- pclk-sample:
- description:
Data sampling on rising or falling edge.- enum:
- 0 # Falling edge- 1 # Rising edge- default: 0
Shouldn't this be moved to the endpoint, the same way data-mapping is defined as an endpoint property ?
The strapping is a chip property, not port property, so no.
For this particular chip that's true. I'm still not convinced overall. For some cases it could be a per-port property
Can you be more specific about "some cases" ?
I'm thinking about bridges that could have multiple parallel inputs.
, and moving it there for lvds-codec too could allow implementing helpers to parse DT properties, without much drawback for this particular use case as far as I can see. It's hard to predict the future with certainty of course, so I won't insist.
The DT bindings and the OS drivers are separate thing, we really shouldn't start bending DT bindings so that they would fit nicely with a specific OS driver model.
DT bindings are not holy beings that live in a mythical heaven way above the mere mortal drivers, they would be useless without implementations. It's not about bending them, which I regularly push against during review, but about structuring them in a way that facilitates implementations when all other things are equal.
As I said, despite wondering whether or not it would be better to move the property to the endpoint (and that was a genuine open question), I won't insist in this case.