| Message ID | 20210413155346.2471776-1-niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory | expand |
Hi Niklas, Thank you for the patch. On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers > to an CSI-2 transmitter. Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there, regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections. > Fixes: 066a94e28a23e04c ("media: dt-bindings: media: Use graph and video-interfaces schemas") > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > index 20396f1be9993461..395484807dd5ed47 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ properties: > modules connected the CSI-2 receiver. > > required: > - - port@0 > - port@1 > > required:
Hi Laurent, Thanks for your comments. On 2021-04-15 22:09:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Niklas, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node > > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. > > > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 > > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers > > to an CSI-2 transmitter. > > Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there, > regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections. I understand what you are saying and if that is the way things are done I'm fine with it. As this was brought to light by a recent change in the bindings I wish to understand if this was always the case the bindings have been wrong all along or not. I only ask as because if we keep the port@0 mandatory there will be board files that needs to add empty port@0 nodes as we know they are not used. And as the media bindings are already quiet large for some Renesas boards I want to understand this before spewing out a lot of patches adding empty nodes ;-) > > > Fixes: 066a94e28a23e04c ("media: dt-bindings: media: Use graph and video-interfaces schemas") > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > index 20396f1be9993461..395484807dd5ed47 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ properties: > > modules connected the CSI-2 receiver. > > > > required: > > - - port@0 > > - port@1 > > > > required: > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
Hi Niklas, On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:08 AM Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> wrote: > On 2021-04-15 22:09:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node > > > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. > > > > > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 > > > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers > > > to an CSI-2 transmitter. > > > > Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there, > > regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections. > > I understand what you are saying and if that is the way things are done > I'm fine with it. As this was brought to light by a recent change in the > bindings I wish to understand if this was always the case the bindings > have been wrong all along or not. > > I only ask as because if we keep the port@0 mandatory there will be > board files that needs to add empty port@0 nodes as we know they are not s/board/SoC .dtsi/ > used. And as the media bindings are already quiet large for some Renesas > boards I want to understand this before spewing out a lot of patches > adding empty nodes ;-) > > > > > > Fixes: 066a94e28a23e04c ("media: dt-bindings: media: Use graph and video-interfaces schemas") > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml | 1 - > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > index 20396f1be9993461..395484807dd5ed47 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ properties: > > > modules connected the CSI-2 receiver. > > > > > > required: > > > - - port@0 > > > - port@1 > > > > > > required: Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
Hi Niklas, On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:05:46AM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > On 2021-04-15 22:09:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node > > > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. > > > > > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 > > > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers > > > to an CSI-2 transmitter. > > > > Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there, > > regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections. > > I understand what you are saying and if that is the way things are done > I'm fine with it. As this was brought to light by a recent change in the > bindings I wish to understand if this was always the case the bindings > have been wrong all along or not. > > I only ask as because if we keep the port@0 mandatory there will be > board files that needs to add empty port@0 nodes as we know they are not > used. And as the media bindings are already quiet large for some Renesas > boards I want to understand this before spewing out a lot of patches > adding empty nodes ;-) In my opinion port@0 should be in the SoC .dtsi, not in the board .dts. Individual boards can then add endpoints when the CSI-2 receiver is connected. Would that make sense for you ? > > > Fixes: 066a94e28a23e04c ("media: dt-bindings: media: Use graph and video-interfaces schemas") > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml | 1 - > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > index 20396f1be9993461..395484807dd5ed47 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ properties: > > > modules connected the CSI-2 receiver. > > > > > > required: > > > - - port@0 > > > - port@1 > > > > > > required:
Hi Laurent and Geert, On 2021-04-21 12:43:39 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Niklas, > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:05:46AM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > On 2021-04-15 22:09:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > > > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node > > > > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. > > > > > > > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 > > > > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers > > > > to an CSI-2 transmitter. > > > > > > Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there, > > > regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections. > > > > I understand what you are saying and if that is the way things are done > > I'm fine with it. As this was brought to light by a recent change in the > > bindings I wish to understand if this was always the case the bindings > > have been wrong all along or not. > > > > I only ask as because if we keep the port@0 mandatory there will be > > board files that needs to add empty port@0 nodes as we know they are not > > used. And as the media bindings are already quiet large for some Renesas > > boards I want to understand this before spewing out a lot of patches > > adding empty nodes ;-) > > In my opinion port@0 should be in the SoC .dtsi, not in the board .dts. > Individual boards can then add endpoints when the CSI-2 receiver is > connected. Would that make sense for you ? I think this is a case of pragmatism vs being technically correct, and of course 'technically correct' being the best kind of correct ;-) Any of the two options works for me as long as we fix the DT validation errors that currently exists. Laurent seems to prefers keeping the port@0 mandatory and adding empty port@0 nodes to dtsi files. @Geert: Does this work for you? > > > > > Fixes: 066a94e28a23e04c ("media: dt-bindings: media: Use graph and video-interfaces schemas") > > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml | 1 - > > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > > index 20396f1be9993461..395484807dd5ed47 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml > > > > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ properties: > > > > modules connected the CSI-2 receiver. > > > > > > > > required: > > > > - - port@0 > > > > - port@1 > > > > > > > > required: > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
Hi Niklas, On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:31 PM Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> wrote: > On 2021-04-21 12:43:39 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:05:46AM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > > On 2021-04-15 22:09:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > > > > > When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node > > > > > port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. > > > > > > > > > > The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 > > > > > receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers > > > > > to an CSI-2 transmitter. > > > > > > > > Ports are properties of the device, they should always be there, > > > > regardless of connections. It's the endpoints that describe connections. > > > > > > I understand what you are saying and if that is the way things are done > > > I'm fine with it. As this was brought to light by a recent change in the > > > bindings I wish to understand if this was always the case the bindings > > > have been wrong all along or not. > > > > > > I only ask as because if we keep the port@0 mandatory there will be > > > board files that needs to add empty port@0 nodes as we know they are not > > > used. And as the media bindings are already quiet large for some Renesas > > > boards I want to understand this before spewing out a lot of patches > > > adding empty nodes ;-) > > > > In my opinion port@0 should be in the SoC .dtsi, not in the board .dts. > > Individual boards can then add endpoints when the CSI-2 receiver is > > connected. Would that make sense for you ? > > I think this is a case of pragmatism vs being technically correct, and > of course 'technically correct' being the best kind of correct ;-) > > Any of the two options works for me as long as we fix the DT validation > errors that currently exists. Laurent seems to prefers keeping the > port@0 mandatory and adding empty port@0 nodes to dtsi files. > > @Geert: Does this work for you? Yes, that's fine for me. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml index 20396f1be9993461..395484807dd5ed47 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ properties: modules connected the CSI-2 receiver. required: - - port@0 - port@1 required:
When converting the binding to use the video-interfaces schemas the node port@0 was incorrectly made a mandatory property. The port@0 node describes which CSI-2 transmitter the R-Car CSI-2 receiver is connected too. Not all boards connects all CSI-2 receivers to an CSI-2 transmitter. Fixes: 066a94e28a23e04c ("media: dt-bindings: media: Use graph and video-interfaces schemas") Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,csi2.yaml | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)