Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] dt-bindings: media: add bindings for TI DS90UB960

[Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>]

On 03/11/2022 14:13, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 11/3/22 13:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 02/11/2022 19:26, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:20:27PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +  i2c-alias-pool:
>>>
>>> Something common or could be? If not, then needs a vendor prefix.
>>
>> I'll have to think about this. It is related to the i2c-atr, so I think
>> it might be a common thing.
> 
> I'd say this should be common. Where the i2c-atr properties should live
> is another question though. If the I2C-atr stays as a genericly usable
> component - then these bindings should be in a file that can be
> referenced by other I2C-atr users (like the UB960 here).

Yep. All the links, link, serializer and alias nodes/properties are new 
things here, and I guess these could be used by other deser-ser systems. 
That said, I don't have any experience with other systems.

> // snip
> 
>>>> +
>>>> +          i2c-alias:
>>>
>>> Vendor prefix.
>>>
>>>> +            description: |
>>>> +              The i2c address used for the serializer. Transactions
>>>> to this
>>>> +              address on the i2c bus where the deserializer resides are
>>>> +              forwarded to the serializer.
>>>> +
>>>> +          rx-mode:
>>>
>>> Vendor prefix. And so on... >
>> Yes, I totally missed these.
> 
> 
> I think the i2c-alias might need to be common as well?

Perhaps...

I was also thinking that the serializer addresses could be taken from 
the i2c-alias-pool. But maybe that's not a good idea, as the 
serializer-access and remote-peripheral-access are a bit different (e.g. 
no ATR when accessing the serializer).

And I was thinking that, at least here, the alias addresses can be 
"anything", so they could be reserved dynamically at runtime, without 
any predefined aliases. But that might be a bit confusing to the user.

  Tomi