[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <532C4841.9090508@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:10:09 +0100
From: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
Philipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] [media] of: move graph helpers from
drivers/media/v4l2-core to drivers/of
On 21/03/14 14:37, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 21/03/14 00:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
>> > The OF graph bindings documentation could just specify the ports node as
>> > optional and mandate individual device bindings to specify it as mandatory or
>> > forbidden (possibly with a default behaviour to avoid making all device
>> > bindings too verbose).
>
> Isn't it so that if the device has one port, it can always do without
> 'ports', but if it has multiple ports, it always has to use 'ports' so
> that #address-cells and #size-cells can be defined?
>
> If so, there's nothing left for the individual device bindings to decide.
Wouldn't it make the bindings even more verbose ? Letting the individual
device bindings to decide sounds more sensible to me.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists