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.
[...]
