[PATCH 2/8] arm64: dts: rockchip: Refactor DSI nodes on rk3399 boards

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Freitag, 27. Juni 2025, 18:52:08 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> Hi Quentin,
> 
> Thanks for taking a look.
> 
> On Fri Jun 27, 2025 at 6:10 PM CEST, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > On 6/27/25 5:16 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> >> The #address-cells and #size-cells properties are not useful on the DSI
> >> controller nodes; they are only useful/required on ports and panel(s).
> >> So remove them from the controller node and add them where actually
> >> needed on the various rk3399 based boards.
> >> 
> >> Next to that, there were several (exact) redefinitions of nodes which
> >> are already present in rk3399-base.dtsi to add a mipi_out endpoint.
> >> Simplify that by referencing the mipi_out phandle and add the endpoint
> >> to that, which allows the removeal of the ports redefinition.
> >> 
> >> And fix 1 instance where the mipi_out referenced node was not sorted
> >> correctly.
> >> 
> >> This fixes the following DTB validation warnings:
> >> 
> >>    unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges",
> >>    "dma-ranges" or child "reg" property
> >> 
> >
> > Too many unrelated changes in this commit, please split into multiple 
> > commits.
> >
> > I could identify:
> >
> > - moving address-cells/size-cells from SoC.dtsi to board dts(i)s,
> > - reordering properties to better match DT coding style 
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html#order-of-properties-in-device-node
> > - use phandle to directly access ports,
> > - reorder DT node to better match DT coding style 
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html#order-of-nodes
> 
> I initially had it as several commits, but that resulted in (f.e.) 1
> issue being fixed, but 1 (or more) others would pop up.
> Those were then fixed in follow-up commits, but I assumed I'd get Rob's
> bot screaming at me for introducing new warnings (first).
> 
> And as they all relate(d) to fixing the dsi node, I then choose to
> combine them (but still separated by SoC).
> IMO there are several ways to organize the commits and each would have
> their pros and cons, so I 'settled' for this arrangement.
> 
> So I prefer to wait for other people's opinion first before reorganizing
> the commits again (if there's a different consensus).

personally, I can live with the current setup here, because as you said
it's all DSI related, and also not a functional change ;-) .

I guess you _could_ move the clock-master + status moves into a separate
patch, as that should not trigger any warnings.


> > The change for RK3399 Puma Haikou Video Demo DTSO is fine for me.
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> Cheers,
>   Diederik
>