| Message ID | 20201128142839.517949-10-paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Allwinner MIPI CSI-2 support for A31/V3s/A83T | expand |
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.kocialkowski@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 port Maxime
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.kocialkowski@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 port I'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
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:02:09PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > 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.kocialkowski@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 port > > I'm not seeing the warning when running dtbs_check. Some are silenced by the Linux build system. You can pass W=1 to your make command line enable all of them. > 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. We definitely want to have the endpoint required. If the CSI node is disabled, the error should be ignored by the dt-validate tool though Maxime
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>; + }; + }; }; hdmi: hdmi@1ee0000 {
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.kocialkowski@bootlin.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)