On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:38:02PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:20:40 +0100, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > For simple devices with only one port, it can be made implicit.
> > The endpoint node can be a direct child of the device node.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ergh... I think this is too loosely defined. The caller really should be
> explicit about which behaviour it needs. I'll listen to arguments
> though if you can make a strong argument.
I have dropped this patch and the corresponding documentation patch for
now. This simplification is a separate issue from the move and there is
no consensus yet.
Basically the main issue with the port { endpoint { remote-endpoint=... } }
binding is that it is very verbose if you just need a single link.
Instead of removing the port node, we could also remove the endpoint node
and have the remote-endpoint property direcly in the port node.
regards
Philipp
--
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
