Hi Nikita, On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 08:19:10PM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: > >> If this approach is not appropriate, then perhaps need to fix it in > >> files for all SoCs, to make it possible for extension board dtsi to be > >> compatible with all of them. > > > > I'm writing a patch to drop those right now :-) I'll CC you. And of course I hit the send button too fast, sorry :-S https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/20211229191838.27922-1-laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > Ok. > > But, are you sure that empty nodes like these are that bad? > > I was going to suggest a movement in opposite direction - adding more such nodes, so they could form a > sort of API for dts plugins describing e.g. displays connectable to boards based on different SoCs. Endpoints are meant to model a link between two ports, so an endpoint shouldn't exist in isolation. The issue with creating named endpoints in SoC files is that you can't tell there what remote devices may exist, so the endpoint may or may not match the actual hardware design of a board. I think it's better to create endpoints on both sides together in overlays. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/20211229193135.28767-2-laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
