From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-202.mailbox.org (mout-p-202.mailbox.org [80.241.56.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF60B2E8B7E; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:50:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760719854; cv=none; b=pINI8T0TcEh6pHlelebOOq8RdGoBxq8NuZT3hVOAKHTMcFeYwrHiMoRydM0/FyrU9bdcVPWmjfcApT+PeTC3lfjMgCEaQ/kvApxvCIKweocFHXgfHly6m+E17ejqQiM//TKVYsrZYw5qH5xRqra54leeq+r6/wd4lQCa46zQECs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760719854; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NAr79tIjrQnJIo4OKFg4GdEQ3pjizJQXJK3DET5Lrz0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=hvGjzrflGBrgAKuqHcAM+itmzD8qBlEWYJpM5X9DVFcTyPgqw5tSQHWi3xisC+J19HRUE6oiROt1Fh16p7jArI2DgOsHo2jBx4CIJNbQ9cC3gf+OHFwjL2iVvokoDAkgO6op3HTHJ6/++kW2Sevuj7/4Bg4vgcxNntpicP5dPVQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=p7BzawF8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="p7BzawF8" Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [10.196.197.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-202.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cp9n526C3z9sr6; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 18:50:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1760719849; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mW/HzZ3gW1VojRmfulxz/q3LPA7ybA89Muj9W/fDTPY=; b=p7BzawF8M8QCK6v4CTLnkyHlWvhCxa5QXUljUyQErxSPSp7PWc+zy+UDhxCegUcrku92l3 vOKM2xepz5l8LPThpvffyZJEhwQgTUzu9Lr6VJNjiaayMZBMQNWAp/COPtjwNGK4VRK9o4 glv1spDZqP15qe6XJXaSynjVn1OKskW1UmogBtG/DljndEGn1H5tGTkj18JCbVSjRKieDR 0jd3u3gDiTc6Xpl0olBv90PSPAlfruVMgBd+qEbKOJusXCtWEcpRtXCcrBShjfi8aOIyX8 qP4Dzm3OuPTqWeeJHmORAb1kOfdCEwCIuAfI4gp+E6GGXzu7a8HKOfDA1VjaWw== Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:04:44 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/39] dt-bindings: display: bridge: Document i.MX95 LVDS display bridge binding To: Frank Li Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Abel Vesa , Conor Dooley , Fabio Estevam , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Laurent Pinchart , Liu Ying , Lucas Stach , Peng Fan , Pengutronix Kernel Team , Rob Herring , Shawn Guo , Thomas Zimmermann , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org References: <20251011170213.128907-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org> <20251011170213.128907-33-marek.vasut@mailbox.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Marek Vasut In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-RS-ID: 009385e66b48b358479 X-MBO-RS-META: 78us17p5xfqwgitsrb49mw8bgn1heybj On 10/13/25 9:20 PM, Frank Li wrote: Hello Frank, [...] >> +patternProperties: >> + "^channel@[0-1]$": >> + type: object >> + description: Represents a channel of LDB. ... >> + port@0: >> + $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port >> + description: Input port of the channel. >> + >> + port@1: >> + $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port >> + description: Output port of the channel. > > most likely port@ should be under ports. The topology here is a bit different, the ports are directly under channel, just like (usually) endpoints would be under port . I think this is correct, even if I agree it does look odd. The rest is fixed, thanks !