Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:08:52 +0200 | From | Tomi Valkeinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Documentation: of: Document graph bindings |
| |
On 26/02/14 17:47, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Ok, that looks compact enough. I still don't see the need to change make > the remote-endpoint property required to achieve this, though. On the > other hand, I wouldn't object to making it mandatory either.
Sure, having remote-endpoint as required doesn't achieve anything particular as such. I just feel it's cleaner. If you have an endpoint, it must point to somewhere. Maybe it makes the code a tiny bit simpler.
If we do already have users for this that do not have the remote-endpoint, then we're stuck with having it as optional. If we don't, I'd rather have it as mandatory.
In any case, it's not a very important thing either way.
>> Of course, it's up to the developer how his dts looks like. But to me it >> makes sense to require the remote-endpoint property, as the endpoint, or >> even the port, doesn't make much sense if there's nothing to connect to. > > Please let's not make it mandatory for a port node to contain an > endpoint. For any device with multiple ports we can't use the simplified > form above, and only adding the (correctly numbered) port in all the > board device trees would be a pain.
That's true. I went with having the ports in the board file, for example on omap3 the dss has two ports, and N900 board uses the second one:
&dss { status = "ok";
pinctrl-names = "default"; pinctrl-0 = <&dss_sdi_pins>;
vdds_sdi-supply = <&vaux1>;
ports { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>;
port@1 { reg = <1>;
sdi_out: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&lcd_in>; datapairs = <2>; }; }; }; };
Here I guess I could have:
&dss { status = "ok";
pinctrl-names = "default"; pinctrl-0 = <&dss_sdi_pins>;
vdds_sdi-supply = <&vaux1>; };
&dss_sdi_port { sdi_out: endpoint { remote-endpoint = <&lcd_in>; datapairs = <2>; }; };
But I didn't like that as it splits the pincontrol and regulator supply from the port/endpoint, which are functionally linked together.
Actually, somewhat aside the subject, I'd like to have the pinctrl and maybe regulator supply also per endpoint, but I didn't see how that would be possible with the current framework. If a board would need to endpoints for the same port, most likely it would also need to different sets of pinctrls.
Tomi
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |