[PATCH v3 5/5] dt-bindings: display: ti,tfp410.yaml: make the ports node optional

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:38:07AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the patch
> 
> On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 19:08 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Ricardo,
> > 
> > Thank you for the patch.
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:23:56PM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> > > Make the ports node optional, since there are some DTs that don't define
> > > any ports for ti,tfp410.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Cañuelo <ricardo.canuelo at collabora.com>
> > 
> > Shouldn't we fix those DTs instead ? What's the point of a TFP410
> > without ports in DT ?
> 
> This comes from the discussion in the previous version of this series.
> 
> In the DTs that don't define any ports (it's dove-sbc-a510.dts only, actually)
> it's not clear how to define the ports (I'm not familiar with this board).
> Initially I defined a set of empty ports just to comply with the binding
> requirements, but Rob suggested that we might as well declare them as optional,
> since having an empty port definition with no remote endpoints is no better than
> having no ports at all.

I did? Must have missed some context.

> I understand both opinions but I just don't know which is the best option at
> this point.

Just leave the warning to be fixed.

Rob