[PATCH V2] dt-bindings: bridge: samsung-dsim: Make some flags optional

[Jagan Teki]

On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 6:57 PM Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the event a device is connected to the samsung-dsim
> controller that doesn't support the burst-clock, the
> driver is able to get the requested pixel clock from the
> attached device or bridge.  In these instances, the
> samsung,burst-clock-frequency isn't needed, so remove
> it from the required list.
>
> The pll-clock frequency can be set by the device tree entry
> for samsung,pll-clock-frequency, but in some cases, the
> pll-clock may have the same clock rate as sclk_mipi clock.
> If they are equal, this flag is not needed since the driver
> will use the sclk_mipi rate as a fallback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> ---
> V2:  Split from driver series.  Re-word updates for burst
> and pll-clock frequency.
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/samsung,mipi-dsim.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/samsung,mipi-dsim.yaml
> index 9f61ebdfefa8..06b6c44d4641 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/samsung,mipi-dsim.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/samsung,mipi-dsim.yaml
> @@ -70,7 +70,9 @@ properties:
>    samsung,burst-clock-frequency:
>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>      description:
> -      DSIM high speed burst mode frequency.
> +      DSIM high speed burst mode frequency.  If absent,
> +      the pixel clock from the attached device or bridge
> +      will be used instead.
>
>    samsung,esc-clock-frequency:
>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> @@ -80,7 +82,8 @@ properties:
>    samsung,pll-clock-frequency:
>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>      description:
> -      DSIM oscillator clock frequency.
> +      DSIM oscillator clock frequency. If absent, the clock frequency
> +      of sclk_mipi will be used instead.

Maybe this explicit comment won't require as it is not listed in "required"

Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com>