On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:06 PM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/1/22 19:34, Rob Herring wrote: > > 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. > > I would likely opt for the OF graph in all cases, panels, bridges, > controllers. Then it would be consistent. > > > 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. > > Maybe we would start requiring that port even for simple panels ? > The port is physically there on that panel after all. Fix this in all the dts files and then I'll agree. Though I think this ship has already sailed. I'd like to someday get to platforms without warnings and not just keep adding new warnings. Rob
