On 08/03/14 17:54, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Sylwester suggested as an alternative, if I understood correctly, to
>> drop the endpoint node and instead keep the port:
>>
>> device-a {
>> implicit_output_ep: port {
>> remote-endpoint = <&explicit_input_ep>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> device-b {
>> port {
>> explicit_input_ep: endpoint {
>> remote-endpoint = <&implicit_output_ep>;
>> };
>> };
>> };
>>
>> This would have the advantage to reduce verbosity for devices with multiple
>> ports that are only connected via one endport each, and you'd always have
>> the connected ports in the device tree as 'port' nodes.
>
> I like that idea. I would prefer making the 'port' nodes mandatory and the
> 'ports' and 'endpoint' nodes optional. Leaving the 'port' node out slightly
> decreases readability in my opinion, but making the 'endpoint' node optional
> increases it. That's just my point of view though.
I, on the other hand, don't like it =). With that format, the
remote-endpoint doesn't point to an EP, but a port. And you'll have
endpoint's properties in a port node, among the port's properties.
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
