From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752834AbaCITWF (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Mar 2014 15:22:05 -0400 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:45457 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751812AbaCITWC (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Mar 2014 15:22:02 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:21:43 +0100 From: Philipp Zabel 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] of: Implement simplified graph binding for single port devices 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140307183802.B6E90C40C6F@trevor.secretlab.ca> X-Sent-From: Pengutronix Hildesheim X-URL: http://www.pengutronix.de/ X-IRC: #ptxdist @freenode X-Accept-Language: de,en X-Accept-Content-Type: text/plain X-Uptime: 20:13:53 up 197 days, 4:44, 39 users, load average: 0,35, 0,24, 0,18 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:5054:ff:fec0:8e10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: pza@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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