On 03/19/16 08:39, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:22:34 +0200 Jyri Sarha jsarha@ti.com wrote:
@@ -76,16 +87,22 @@ };
&i2c0 {
- tda19988 {
- tda19988: tda19988 { compatible = "nxp,tda998x"; reg = <0x70>;
- pinctrl-names = "default", "off"; pinctrl-0 = <&nxp_hdmi_bonelt_pins>; pinctrl-1 = <&nxp_hdmi_bonelt_off_pins>;
port {hdmi_0: endpoint@0 {remote-endpoint = <&lcdc_0>;
#sound-dai-cells = <0>;audio-ports = < AFMT_I2S 0x03>;ports {port@0 {hdmi_0: endpoint@0 {remote-endpoint = <&lcdc_0>;}; };Why did you add a 'ports' container? As there is only one port, it is useless.
Well, I just left it there. The node parsing code should handle the container if it follows graph[1] binding. Putting the ports container node is equally correct as leaving it out, but surely I can leave it out next time (when ever it comes).
Also, you don't need '@0' in the 'port' and 'endpoint'. If you want to keep it, you must add 'reg = 0;'s.
I am still not sure about the "must" part. From all that I have read[2] the unit number should be the same as reg property if possible. But then again if the reg property consists of multiple addresses, how do you put them in the unit address? To me no unit address at all is an analogue situation and I see no point in adding an artificial reg property if I need multiple nodes by same name. This actually happens quite often with sound-nodes when I have multiple audio devices in the same system.
But still, there is no need for the unit address here and it should be removed. I'll do that next time.
Best regard, Jyri
[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt [2] http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage