On 20-03-10 10:23, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Marco, > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 07:14:58AM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > Hi Sakari, > > > > On 20-03-09 15:37, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:56:01PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > If I understood it right the ports should be numbered using the "port" > > > > property and not the "reg" property. I stumbled over it during > > > > extending the v4l2_fwnode_parse_link() helper which also use the "port" > > > > property. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I don't know if this is right since I'm not a ACPI guy *sorry* > > > > Anyway reading the doc description and the v4l2_fwnode_parse_link() code > > > > give me a 2/3 chance. > > > > > > Looking at the documentation, this indeed seems to be a bug in the > > > documentation. The code is right, as is the example. As the property was > > > previously called "port", there is no actual harm even if someone just read > > > the documentation, and not the examples or the code parsing this. > > > > > > The buggy patch is a4138e7c12287268348cc2dcad414a62c515d77a . > > > > > > Could you use this instead? > > > > Of course, thanks for the clarification. It seems that we need to update the > > v4l2_fwnode_parse_link() too? > > Well, yes. This has escaped me because there have been no ACPI users of > that function. In fact, there are only two users in total. That suggests it > may not be that useful after all as other drivers do the same job without. 3 with the _new_ v4l2-fwnode-connectors ;-) > Feel free to write a patch. :-) K, I will do so. Regards, Marco
