Hi Niklas,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:31 PM Niklas Söderlund
<niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2021-04-21 12:43:39 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:05:46AM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > > On 2021-04-15 22:09:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > > > > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node
> > > > > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property.
> > > > >
> > > > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2
> > > > > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers
> > > > > to an CSI-2 transmitter.
> > > >
> > > > Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there,
> > > > regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections.
> > >
> > > I understand what you are saying and if that is the way things are done
> > > I'm fine with it. As this was brought to light by a recent change in the
> > > bindings I wish to understand if this was always the case the bindings
> > > have been wrong all along or not.
> > >
> > > I only ask as because if we keep the port@0 mandatory there will be
> > > board files that needs to add empty port@0 nodes as we know they are not
> > > used. And as the media bindings are already quiet large for some Renesas
> > > boards I want to understand this before spewing out a lot of patches
> > > adding empty nodes ;-)
> >
> > In my opinion port@0 should be in the SoC .dtsi, not in the board .dts.
> > Individual boards can then add endpoints when the CSI-2 receiver is
> > connected. Would that make sense for you ?
>
> I think this is a case of pragmatism vs being technically correct, and
> of course 'technically correct' being the best kind of correct ;-)
>
> Any of the two options works for me as long as we fix the DT validation
> errors that currently exists. Laurent seems to prefers keeping the
> port@0 mandatory and adding empty port@0 nodes to dtsi files.
>
> @Geert: Does this work for you?
Yes, that's fine for me. Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
