Hi,
On Tue 01 Dec 20, 13:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 03:28:29PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > Since the CSI controller binding is getting a bit more complex due
> > to the addition of MIPI CSI-2 bridge support, make the ports node
> > explicit with the parallel port.
> >
> > This way, it's clear that the controller only supports parallel
> > interface input and there's no confusion about the port number.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkow...@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi | 9 +++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
> > index 9be13378d4df..02b698cace6a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
> > @@ -803,6 +803,15 @@ csi: camera@1cb0000 {
> > pinctrl-names = "default";
> > pinctrl-0 = <&csi_pins>;
> > status = "disabled";
> > +
> > + ports {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > + csi_in_parallel: port@0 {
> > + reg = <0>;
> > + };
> > + };
> > };
>
> This will create a DTC warning, since port@0 is the only node, and is
> equivalent to portI'm not seeing the warning when running dtbs_check. More generally, why is it a problem that there's only one node defined? One issue that I did see is that the port node doesn't have an endpoint here, so I will remove the requirement to have an endpoint in the bindings documentation to allow this kind of definition. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
