Hi Ricardo, On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:38:07AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote: > On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 19:08 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:23:56PM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote: > > > Make the ports node optional, since there are some DTs that don't define > > > any ports for ti,tfp410. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Cañuelo <ricardo.canuelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Shouldn't we fix those DTs instead ? What's the point of a TFP410 > > without ports in DT ? > > This comes from the discussion in the previous version of this series. > > In the DTs that don't define any ports (it's dove-sbc-a510.dts only, actually) > it's not clear how to define the ports (I'm not familiar with this board). > Initially I defined a set of empty ports just to comply with the binding > requirements, but Rob suggested that we might as well declare them as optional, > since having an empty port definition with no remote endpoints is no better than > having no ports at all. > > I understand both opinions but I just don't know which is the best option at > this point. How about keeping the ports mandatory, and leaving dove-sbc-a510.dts to be fixed later ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
