[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74b6b670-747a-f326-44ea-7588c3989b0e@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:24:50 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, mchehab@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
kishon@...com, vkoul@...nel.org, hverkuil@...all.nl,
jacopo@...ndi.org, kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] media: dt-bindings: add bindings for Toshiba
TC358746
On 20/09/2022 19:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>
>>> Explicit bus types in DT indeed makes it easier for drivers, so if a
>>> device can support multiple bus types (even if not implemented yet in
>>> the corresponding drivers), the property should be there.
>>
>> Okay, I will make it required.
>>
>>>> Why do you have hsync-active and vsync-active if both are always zero? Can
>>>> the hardware not support other configuration?
>>
>> Sure the device supports toggling the logic but it is not implemented.
>> So the bindings needs to enforce it to 0 right now. As soon as it is
>> implemented & tested, we can say that both is supported :)
>
> Bindings are not supposed to be limited by the existing driver
> implementation, so you can already allow both polarities, and just
> reject the unsupported options in the driver at probe time. Future
> updates to the driver won't require a binding change.
>
+1
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists