Hi Javier,
On Tuesday 23 February 2016 15:23:48 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 02/23/2016 03:02 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 February 2016 13:27:51 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> On 02/23/2016 01:16 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 23 February 2016 13:09:58 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >>>> The chip internal signal generator was modelled as an input connector
> >>>> and represented as a media entity but isn't really a connector so the
> >>>> driver was changed to use the V4L2_CID_TEST_PATTERN control instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> Remove the signal generator input from the list of connectors in the
> >>>> tvp5150 DT binding document as well since isn't a connector anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think is OK to change this DT binding because is only in the media
> >>>> tree for now and not in mainline yet and also is expected to change
> >>>> more since there are still discussions about how input connectors will
> >>>> be supported by the Media Controller framework in the media subsystem.
> >>>
> >>> I think that's fine, yes
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>> I haven't noticed the patch that introduced this early enough I'm
> >>> afraid, and I think we still have issues with those bindings.
> >>
> >> Yes, I posted those patches and got merged before we had the discussion
> >> about input connectors over IRC so I didn't know what was the correct way
> >> to do it.
> >>
> >>> The tvp5150 node should *not* contain connector subnodes, the connectors
> >>> nodes should use the bindings defined in
> >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/connector/ and be linked to
> >>> the tvp5150 node using the OF graph bindings (ports and endpoints).
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >>> Do you think you could fix that ?
> >>
> >> Yes I will, I'm waiting for the input connectors discussions to settle so
> >> I can post a final version of the DT bindings following what is agreed by
> >> all.
> >
> > Shouldn't we revert the patch that introduced connectors support in the DT
> > bindings in the meantime then, to avoid known to be broken bindings from
> > hitting mainline in case we can't fix them in time for v4.6 ?
>
> Yes, that would be a good idea. I've seen recently though a DT binding doc
> that was marked as unstable / work in progress and I wonder if that's a new
> accepted convention for DT binding docs or is just something that slipped
> through review.
I'm not sure if it's an established practice but I certainly like it. However,
in this specific case, we know that the bindings are broken, so I think a
revert would be better.
> The commit I'm talking about is f07b4e49d27e ("Documentation: bindings:
> berlin: consider our dt bindings as unstable") but I don't see anything
> documented in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ABI.txt.
>
> In any case, I'm fine with either marking the DT binding doc as unstable or
> to revert the patch that added the connectors portion to the tvp5150 DT
> binding.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
