Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: display: panel: ilitek, ili9488: make the port optional

[Icenowy Zheng]

在 2026-11-11三的 11:28 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
> On 11/11/2026 11:26, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > 在 2026-11-10二的 13:00 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 05:07:04PM +0100, Romain TISSERAND wrote:
> > > > The panel is a MIPI-DSI peripheral, a child node of its DSI
> > > > host,
> > > > and the
> > > > driver does not use a graph port. A port is only needed when
> > > > the
> > > > host
> > > > links its panel through the graph; other DSI hosts, such as the
> > > > Allwinner
> > > > sun6i-a31-mipi-dsi one, link the child node and have no output
> > > > port
> > > > to
> > > > point at. The PinePhone panel is described that way on the same
> > > > host,
> > > > without a port.
> > > > 
> > > > Keep the port allowed (panel-common) but no longer required, as
> > > > for
> > > > other
> > > > DSI panels such as ilitek,ili9881c.
> > > 
> > > ilitek,ili7807s and a few others have the same and it is
> > > confusing.
> > > The
> > > port should be required when this is connected over SPI or I2C,
> > > but
> > > not
> > > for MIPI DSI. I think that for MIPI DSI port is meaningless so
> > > actually
> > > incorrect.
> > 
> > I found that the dw-mipi-dsi common code (e.g. on Rockchip SoCs
> > with
> > dw_mipi_dsi-rockchip) would expect the panel to be connected via a
> > port
> > even if it's the child node of the DSI controller.
> > 
> > Such an example is at arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-
> > pinephone-
> > pro.dts .
> > 
> 
> Yes, the same for Qualcomm. So I actually wonder who needs the change
> here.

I wonder too because I just created a MIPI DSI driver based on the dw-
mipi-dsi common code.

I think the different requirement between sun6i-mipi-dsi and dw-mipi-
dsi is exposing the implementation details of the corresponding
drivers. Maybe this should be eliminated, but this would be some big
work.

Thanks,
Icenowy

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof