On 08/03/14 17:54, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Sylwester suggested as an alternative, if I understood correctly, to >> drop the endpoint node and instead keep the port: >> >> device-a { >> implicit_output_ep: port { >> remote-endpoint = <&explicit_input_ep>; >> }; >> }; >> >> device-b { >> port { >> explicit_input_ep: endpoint { >> remote-endpoint = <&implicit_output_ep>; >> }; >> }; >> }; >> >> This would have the advantage to reduce verbosity for devices with multiple >> ports that are only connected via one endport each, and you'd always have >> the connected ports in the device tree as 'port' nodes. > > I like that idea. I would prefer making the 'port' nodes mandatory and the > 'ports' and 'endpoint' nodes optional. Leaving the 'port' node out slightly > decreases readability in my opinion, but making the 'endpoint' node optional > increases it. That's just my point of view though. I, on the other hand, don't like it =). With that format, the remote-endpoint doesn't point to an EP, but a port. And you'll have endpoint's properties in a port node, among the port's properties. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature