Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip-inno-csi-dphy: add rk3588 variant

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:45:32AM +0200, Michael Riesch wrote:
> Hi Diederik,
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 
> On 6/17/25 16:12, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm (unfortunately) not seeing any @rock-chips.com recipients ...
> 
> Oops, I meant to include at least Kever, but forgot to do it. Will do in v2.
> 
> Cc: Kever
> 
> > 
> > On Tue Jun 17, 2025 at 10:54 AM CEST, Michael Riesch via B4 Relay wrote:
> >> From: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@collabora.com>
> >>
> >> The Rockchip RK3588 variant of the CSI-2 DPHY features two reset lines.
> >> Add the variant and allow for the additional reset.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@collabora.com>
> >> ---
> >>  .../bindings/phy/rockchip-inno-csi-dphy.yaml       | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-inno-csi-dphy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-inno-csi-dphy.yaml
> >> index 5ac994b3c0aa..6755738b13ee 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-inno-csi-dphy.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-inno-csi-dphy.yaml
> >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties:
> >>        - rockchip,rk3326-csi-dphy
> >>        - rockchip,rk3368-csi-dphy
> >>        - rockchip,rk3568-csi-dphy
> >> +      - rockchip,rk3588-csi-dphy
> >>  
> >>    reg:
> >>      maxItems: 1
> >> @@ -39,18 +40,49 @@ properties:
> >>      maxItems: 1
> >>  
> >>    resets:
> >> -    items:
> >> -      - description: exclusive PHY reset line
> >> +    minItems: 1
> >> +    maxItems: 2
> >>  
> >>    reset-names:
> >> -    items:
> >> -      - const: apb
> >> +    minItems: 1
> >> +    maxItems: 2
> >>  
> >>    rockchip,grf:
> >>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
> >>      description:
> >>        Some additional phy settings are access through GRF regs.
> >>  
> >> +allOf:
> >> +  - if:
> >> +      properties:
> >> +        compatible:
> >> +          contains:
> >> +            enum:
> >> +              - rockchip,px30-csi-dphy
> >> +              - rockchip,rk1808-csi-dphy
> >> +              - rockchip,rk3326-csi-dphy
> >> +              - rockchip,rk3368-csi-dphy
> >> +              - rockchip,rk3568-csi-dphy
> >> +    then:
> >> +      properties:
> >> +        resets:
> >> +          items:
> >> +            - description: exclusive PHY reset line
> >> +
> >> +        reset-names:
> >> +          items:
> >> +            - const: apb
> >> +
> >> +      required:
> >> +        - reset-names
> >> +    else:
> >> +      properties:
> >> +        resets:
> >> +          minItems: 2
> >> +
> >> +        reset-names:
> >> +          minItems: 2

You have to define the names. Ideally, at the top level and then keep 
this part like this.

> >> +
> >>  required:
> >>    - compatible
> >>    - reg
> >> @@ -59,7 +91,6 @@ required:
> >>    - '#phy-cells'
> >>    - power-domains
> >>    - resets
> >> -  - reset-names
> >>    - rockchip,grf
> >>  
> >>  additionalProperties: false
> >> @@ -78,3 +109,22 @@ examples:
> >>          reset-names = "apb";
> >>          rockchip,grf = <&grf>;
> >>      };
> >> +  - |
> >> +    #include <dt-bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3588-cru.h>
> >> +    #include <dt-bindings/reset/rockchip,rk3588-cru.h>
> >> +
> >> +    soc {
> >> +        #address-cells = <2>;
> >> +        #size-cells = <2>;
> >> +
> >> +        csi_dphy0: phy@fedc0000 {
> >> +            compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-csi-dphy";
> >> +            reg = <0x0 0xfedc0000 0x0 0x8000>;
> >> +            clocks = <&cru PCLK_CSIPHY0>;
> >> +            clock-names = "pclk";
> >> +            #phy-cells = <0>;
> >> +            resets = <&cru SRST_CSIPHY0>, <&cru SRST_P_CSIPHY0>;
> >> +            rockchip,grf = <&csidphy0_grf>;
> >> +            status = "disabled";
> >> +        };
> >> +    };
> > 
> > ... which could hopefully tell us what the value is/should be for the
> > *required* 'power-domains' property, which is missing in this example.
> > IOW: the binding example is invalid according to its own binding.
> 
> Huh, indeed. Hm. Why didn't make dt_binding_check warn me about that?!

You disabled the node, what do you want us to check?

Rob