Hi Philipp, On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:16:17PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 12:05 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Philipp, > > > > On Friday, 23 February 2018 11:56:52 EET Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 11:29 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 22 February 2018 03:39:37 EET Steve Longerbeam wrote: > > > > > For some subdevices, a fwnode endpoint that has no connection to a > > > > > remote endpoint may not be an error. Let the parse_endpoint callback > > > > > > > > make that decision in v4l2_async_notifier_fwnode_parse_endpoint(). If > > > > > the callback indicates that is not an error, skip adding the asd to > > > > > the > > > > > notifier and return 0. > > > > > > > > > > For the current users of v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints() > > > > > (omap3isp, rcar-vin, intel-ipu3), return -EINVAL in the callback for > > > > > unavailable remote fwnodes to maintain the previous behavior. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this should be a per-driver decision. > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, if an endpoint node has no remote-endpoint property, > > > > the endpoint node is not needed. I've always considered such an endpoint > > > > node as invalid. The OF graphs DT bindings are however not clear on this > > > > subject. > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt says: > > > > > > Each endpoint should contain a 'remote-endpoint' phandle property > > > that points to the corresponding endpoint in the port of the remote > > > device. > > > > > > ("should", not "must"). > > > > The DT bindings documentation has historically used "should" to mean "must" > > in > > many places :-( That was a big mistake. > > Maybe I could have worded that better? The intention was to let "should" > be read as a strong suggestion, like "it is recommended", but not as a > requirement.
Is there a reason for have an endpoint without a remote-endpoint property? The problem with should (in general when it is used when the intention is "shall") is that it lets the developer to write broken DT source that is still conforming to the spec. I don't have a strong preference to change should to shall in this particular case now but I would have used "shall" to begin with. > > > > Later, the remote-node property explicitly lists the remote-endpoint > > > property as optional. > > > > I've seen that too, and that's why I mentioned that the documentation isn't > > clear on the subject. > > Do you have a suggestion how to improve the documentation? I thought > listing the remote-endpoint property under a header called "Optional > endpoint properties" was pretty clear. > > > This could also be achieved by adding the endpoints in the board DT files. > > See > > for instance the hdmi@fead0000 node in arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/ > > r8a7795.dtsi and how it gets extended in > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795- > > salvator-x.dts. On the other hand, I also have empty endpoints in the > > display@feb00000 node of arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi. > > Right, that would be possible. > > > I think we should first decide what we want to do going forward (allowing > > for > > empty endpoints or not), clarify the documentation, and then update the > > code. > > In any case I don't think it should be a per-device decision. > > There are device trees in the wild that have those empty endpoints, so I > don't think retroactively declaring the remote-endpoint property > required is a good idea. You could IMO, but the kernel (and existing drivers) would still need to work with DT binaries without those bits. And leave comments in the code why it's there. > > Is there any driver that currently benefits from throwing an error on > empty endpoints in any way? I'd prefer to just let the core ignore empty > endpoints for all drivers. Not necessarily, but it's overhead in parsing the DT as well as in the DT source and in the DT binary. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ai...@linux.intel.com