Hi,

On Tue 01 Dec 20, 13:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 03:28:29PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
---
 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

-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com