From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philipp Zabel Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] of: Implement simplified graph binding for single port devices Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:21:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20140309192143.GB4939@pengutronix.de> References: <1394011242-16783-1-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <1394011242-16783-7-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <20140307183802.B6E90C40C6F@trevor.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140307183802.B6E90C40C6F@trevor.secretlab.ca> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Philipp Zabel , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Russell King - ARM Linux , Rob Herring , Sylwester Nawrocki , Laurent Pinchart , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Tomi Valkeinen , Kyungmin Park , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:38:02PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:20:40 +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > For simple devices with only one port, it can be made implicit. > > The endpoint node can be a direct child of the device node. > > > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel > > Ergh... I think this is too loosely defined. The caller really should be > explicit about which behaviour it needs. I'll listen to arguments > though if you can make a strong argument. I have dropped this patch and the corresponding documentation patch for now. This simplification is a separate issue from the move and there is no consensus yet. Basically the main issue with the port { endpoint { remote-endpoint=... } } binding is that it is very verbose if you just need a single link. Instead of removing the port node, we could also remove the endpoint node and have the remote-endpoint property direcly in the port node. regards Philipp