* [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
@ 2021-04-13 15:53 Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-15 19:09 ` Laurent Pinchart
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Niklas Söderlund @ 2021-04-13 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-media
Cc: linux-renesas-soc, Niklas Söderlund
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(-)
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:
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
2021-04-13 15:53 [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory Niklas Söderlund
@ 2021-04-15 19:09 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-16 8:05 ` Niklas Söderlund
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2021-04-15 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Niklas Söderlund
Cc: Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-media, linux-renesas-soc
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:
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
2021-04-15 19:09 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2021-04-16 8:05 ` Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-19 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-21 9:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Niklas Söderlund @ 2021-04-16 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent Pinchart; +Cc: Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-media, linux-renesas-soc
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
--
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
2021-04-16 8:05 ` Niklas Söderlund
@ 2021-04-19 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-21 9:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2021-04-19 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Niklas Söderlund
Cc: Laurent Pinchart, Rob Herring,
open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS,
Linux Media Mailing List, Linux-Renesas
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
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
2021-04-16 8:05 ` Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-19 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2021-04-21 9:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-21 12:31 ` Niklas Söderlund
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2021-04-21 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Niklas Söderlund
Cc: Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-media, linux-renesas-soc
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:
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
2021-04-21 9:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2021-04-21 12:31 ` Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-21 12:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Niklas Söderlund @ 2021-04-21 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent Pinchart, Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-media, linux-renesas-soc
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
--
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory
2021-04-21 12:31 ` Niklas Söderlund
@ 2021-04-21 12:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2021-04-21 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Niklas Söderlund
Cc: Laurent Pinchart, Rob Herring,
open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS,
Linux Media Mailing List, Linux-Renesas
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
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-21 12:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-04-13 15:53 [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,csi2: Node port@0 is not mandatory Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-15 19:09 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-16 8:05 ` Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-19 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-21 9:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-21 12:31 ` Niklas Söderlund
2021-04-21 12:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).