On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 03:22:19AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 4/1/22 01:52, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:48:23 +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> MIPI-DSI devices, if they are controlled through the bus itself, have to > >> be described as a child node of the controller they are attached to. > >> > >> Thus, there's no requirement on the controller having an OF-Graph output > >> port to model the data stream: it's assumed that it would go from the > >> parent to the child. > >> > >> However, some bridges controlled through the DSI bus still require an > >> input OF-Graph port, thus requiring a controller with an OF-Graph output > >> port. This prevents those bridges from being used with the controllers > >> that do not have one without any particular reason to. > >> > >> Let's drop that requirement. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> .../devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/chipone,icn6211.yaml | 1 - > >> .../devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358762.yaml | 1 - > >> 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) > >> > > > > I tend to agree with port@0 not being needed and really like > > consistency. > > The consistent thing to do would be to always use port@0 and OF graph, no ? I think that's the direction we should take in the long term. I'm not opposed to a short-term consistency-focussed patch that makes the port optional, as long as there's an agreement on the long term goal and this patch won't be used as an argument against it in the future. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
