Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sc7280-camss

[Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org>]

Hi Bryan,

On 11/28/24 01:31, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 27/11/2024 12:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> +        camss: camss@acaf000 {
>>> +            compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
>>> +
>>> +            reg = <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>> +                  <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>
>> Unsurprisingly above is the error, which has been already reported for
>> enumerous amount of times, I wish to stop poking it eventually, please
>> reference to the previously given review comments and fix all of them
>> before sending a new version of the changes.
> 
> So just to be clear what is wrong here because it may not be clear.
> 
> 1. Sort by IP name
> 2. The first address @ reg should be equal to the address @ camss
> 
> -> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,msm8953-camss.yaml
> 
>       camss: camss@1b00020 {
>           compatible = "qcom,msm8953-camss";
> 
>           reg = <0x1b00020 0x10>,
>                 <0x1b30000 0x100>,
>                 <0x1b30400 0x100>,
>                 <0x1b30800 0x100>,
>                 <0x1b34000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b00030 0x4>,
>                 <0x1b35000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b00038 0x4>,
>                 <0x1b36000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b00040 0x4>,
>                 <0x1b31000 0x500>,
>                 <0x1b10000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b14000 0x1000>;
>           reg-names = "csi_clk_mux",
>                       "csid0",
>                       "csid1",
>                       "csid2",
>                       "csiphy0",
>                       "csiphy0_clk_mux",
>                       "csiphy1",
>                       "csiphy1_clk_mux",
>                       "csiphy2",
>                       "csiphy2_clk_mux",
>                       "ispif",
>                       "vfe0",
>                       "vfe1";
> So:
> 
>           camss: camss@acaf000 {
>               compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
> 
>               reg = <0x0 0x0acaf000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acba000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0accf000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acc1000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace0000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace2000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace4000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace6000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace8000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acc4000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acb6000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0accb000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acbd000 0x0 0x4000>;
>               reg-names = "vfe0",
>                           "csid0",
>                           "csid0_lite",
>                           "csid1",
>                           "csid1_lite",
>                           "csid2",
>                           "csiphy0",
>                           "csiphy1",
>                           "csiphy2",
>                           "csiphy3",
>                           "csiphy4",
>                           "vfe0_lite",
>                           "vfe1",
>                           "vfe1_lite",
>                           "vfe2";

So, apparently it is the third and the new proposed order of sorting. Any
following scheme is worse than the previous one in my opinion, but why not.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir