Another thought. In terms of the pattern, I would add a recommendation>
> > that there should be a way to identify ports of a particular type. ie.
> > If I were using the pattern to implement an patch bay of DSP filters,
> > where each input and output, then each target node should have a unique
> > identifier property analogous to "interrupt-controller" or
> > "gpio-controller". In this fictitious example I would probably choose
> > "audiostream-input-port" and "audiostream-output-port" as empty
> > properties in the port nodes. (I'm not suggesting a change to the
> > existing binding, but making a recommendation to new users).
> I don't see any harm in that, but I don't right away see what could be
> done with them? Did you have something in mind?
It would help with schema validation and allow ports of the same
interface to get grouped together.
> I guess those could be used to study the graph before the drivers have
> been loaded. After the drivers have been loaded, the drivers should
> somehow register themselves and the ports/endpoints. And as the driver
> knows what kind of ports they are, it can supply this information in the
> runtime data structures.
>
> If we do that, would it be better to have two pieces of data:
> input/output/bi-directional, and the port type (say, mipi-dpi, lvds, etc.)?
Sure. That's worth considering.--