On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:36:31AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/11/2022 07:55, Paul Elder wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:06:14PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 18/11/2022 10:39, Paul Elder wrote: > >>> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Add an example to the rockchip-isp1 DT binding that showcases usage of > >>> the parallel input of the ISP, connected to the CSI-2 receiver internal > >>> to the i.MX8MP. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Missing SoB. > > > > I don't quite understand. I see an SoB right there. > > Laurent did not sent it. Did you run checkpatch before sending? That's why he's on the "From:" in the beginning. checkpatch says it's fine. > > > > >> > >>> --- > >>> .../bindings/media/rockchip-isp1.yaml | 72 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+) > >>> > >> > >> I don't know what do you demonstrate there... usage of endpoints? That's > >> the only difference. Such usage is the same everywhere, nothing specific > > > > I guess...? Doesn't the same argument apply against the px30 example too > > then? > > > >> to this example. You already have two examples, so I don't think this > >> brings anything more. > > > > We do have usage of this in imx8mp.dtsi and overlays for the ISP, but > > those patches haven't been sent/merged yet, so in the meantime I think > > there is value in providing an example here for the imx8mp. > > The examples are not for demonstrating imx8mp or any other soc, but this > one given binding. Changing compatibles and few properties is not a > different example - from "exampleness" point of view it is very similar. Ah okay, I see. Paul
