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 guess it depends how wide our scope for consistency is. Just DSI bus controlled bridges? DSI panels? All bridges and panels? Any panel without a control interface has the same dilemma as those can be a child of the display controller (or bridge) and not even use OF graph. All simple panels don't require 'port' either. That's presumably only consistent because we made a single schema. I'd assume 'non-simple' panels with their own schema are not consistent. Rob
