| Message ID | 20170609172111.23057-3-khilman@baylibre.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 06/09/2017 12:21 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Drop the unused endpoints. They should only be used when there is > an actual remote-endpoint connected. > Would it make sense to implement the status property here instead of removing the nodes completely? If other property values are the same for all users, then it seems like making all users have to dig up the docs and copy/paste is not as nice as just overriding the status property. But, if users have to change other values as well, then it makes sense to just delete these. > - /* VPIF capture port */ > - port@0 { --> status = "disabled"; > - vpif_input_ch0: endpoint@0 { > - reg = <0>; > - bus-width = <8>; > - }; > - > - vpif_input_ch1: endpoint@1 { > - reg = <1>; > - bus-width = <8>; > - data-shift = <8>; > - }; > - }; > - > - /* VPIF display port */ > - port@1 { --> status = "disabled"; > - vpif_output_ch0: endpoint { > - bus-width = <8>; > - }; > - }; > Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts | 21 --------------------- > 1 file changed, 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts > index a423e8ebfb37..67e72bc72e80 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts > @@ -301,25 +301,4 @@ > pinctrl-names = "default"; > pinctrl-0 = <&vpif_capture_pins>, <&vpif_display_pins>; > status = "okay"; > - > - /* VPIF capture port */ > - port@0 { > - vpif_input_ch0: endpoint@0 { > - reg = <0>; > - bus-width = <8>; > - }; > - > - vpif_input_ch1: endpoint@1 { > - reg = <1>; > - bus-width = <8>; > - data-shift = <8>; > - }; > - }; > - > - /* VPIF display port */ > - port@1 { > - vpif_output_ch0: endpoint { > - bus-width = <8>; > - }; > - }; > }; >
Hi David, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:17 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote: > On 06/09/2017 12:21 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >> Drop the unused endpoints. They should only be used when there is >> an actual remote-endpoint connected. >> > > Would it make sense to implement the status property here instead of > removing the nodes completely? If other property values are the same for all > users, then it seems like making all users have to dig up the docs and > copy/paste is not as nice as just overriding the status property. But, if > users have to change other values as well, then it makes sense to just > delete these. I considered that, but in reality, when adding an endpoint for VPIF input, you'll not only need to add the remote-endpoint, but the bus_width will depend on the remote-endpoint as well (e.g. tvp514x for composite only uses 8-bit bus, but for raw-camera capture, it can use 10 or 12.) Therefore, I think it best to delete them entirely. Thanks for the review, Kevin
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts index a423e8ebfb37..67e72bc72e80 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts @@ -301,25 +301,4 @@ pinctrl-names = "default"; pinctrl-0 = <&vpif_capture_pins>, <&vpif_display_pins>; status = "okay"; - - /* VPIF capture port */ - port@0 { - vpif_input_ch0: endpoint@0 { - reg = <0>; - bus-width = <8>; - }; - - vpif_input_ch1: endpoint@1 { - reg = <1>; - bus-width = <8>; - data-shift = <8>; - }; - }; - - /* VPIF display port */ - port@1 { - vpif_output_ch0: endpoint { - bus-width = <8>; - }; - }; };
Drop the unused endpoints. They should only be used when there is an actual remote-endpoint connected. Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/da850-evm.dts | 21 --------------------- 1 file changed, 21 deletions(-)