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
What I don't like here is: details of particular SoC (such as "panel gets video from port@1 of &lvds1)
leak into per-panel DT fragment.
This limits possibilities to share DT fragments between different use cases. In the patch pointed by the
above URL, you have to reference both board and panel in the dts file name.
I'd prefer to make each DT fragment to use only either entities defined in that fragment itself, or
defined "interface entities" between this and "neighbor" DT fragment.
Such as:
- SoC's DT fragment defines a named port/endpoint to export video stream at
- board's DT fragment defines a named panel node corresponding to panel plugged into board's physical
connector, and connects endpoints with SoC's video export,
- panel's DT fragment extends the panel node from board with video mode information for this particular
panel.
And similar for backlight, power, and whatever else exposed on the physical panel connector.
So for the board's physical connector there is a set of board-DT-provided entities for use by DT
fragment of whatever component plugged to the connector, without direct references to final SoC
interfaces. And possibility to reuse DT fragments between boards, and probably have a library of DT
fragments for hardware currently available in the market, usable with different boards where that
hardware can be connected.
Nikita
