Hi Rob, Laurent
> > > +Each ports / port / endpoint can have its type if needed.
> >
> > I think type should only apply to a port. ports is only a grouping for
> > multiple ports. endpoints are just the connection. A port is a single
> > data flow, so 2 endpoints on a port reflect 2 possible connections for
> > that data flow.
> >
> > > +child node can take over parent node type. below example indicates
> > > +device0 type is "typeA" && "typeB",
> > > +device1 type is "typeA" && "typeB" && "typeC".
> >
> > This does not make sense to me. A concrete example perhaps using HDMI
> > audio would be helpful.
>
> "type" on "port" only is OK. I will fix that.
>
> Multi type feature (= take over from parent) and type on "endpoint"
> is not urgent at this point, so I will drop these in v2.
> I just thought that it will be necessary in the future.
In HDMI case, which one is better DT ?
port@0 {
type = "video";
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&xxx>;
};
};
port@1 {
type = "sound";
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&xxx>;
};
};
or
port {
endpoint {
type = "video";
remote-endpoint = <&xxx>;
};
endpoint {
type = "sound";
remote-endpoint = <&xxx>;
};
};
If 2nd one is better, type on endpoint is needed.
