Re: [PATCH RESEND] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: Add support for camss

[Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>]

On 10/06/2025 22:13, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Konrad.
> 
> On 6/11/25 00:04, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 6/10/25 11:02 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> On 6/10/25 22:02, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2025 13:49, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List feedback from DT people is isp@ is the correct prefix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My bad, but I don't understand this comment, it seems irrelevant...
>>>>>
>>>>> The expressed concern is about the novel label name.
>>>>
>>>> I mean to say the feedback from Krzysztof was that we should use isp@
>>>> not camss@ and I agree.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me repeat it thrice, it's okay...
>>>
>>> I don't object against the properly selected device tree node name 
>>> "isp",
>>> here I object against a never used and very questionable label name 
>>> "isp".
>>>
>>> Please feel free to ask more questions, if you still find it confusing.
>>>
>>> Again, I may missed a discussion about the need to get and use a novel
>>> label name, then please share a link to it, it'll be very much 
>>> appreciated.
>>
>> To hopefully help out:
>>
>> label: node-name@unit-address {
>>     property = value;
>> };
>>
> 
> Thank you, here is a link to the wanted section of the dt specification
> for Bryan's comprehension:
> 
> * https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/blob/main/ 
> source/chapter6-source-language.rst.
> 
> If for whatever reason a proposed "isp" label is preferred, then
> since a label rename is not an ABI change, it would make sense to
> do a massive change of renaming all camss labels. Otherwise there will
> be an outstanding incorrespondence/confusion of the label names in
> board .dts files, and that's bad.
> 
> -- 
> Best wishes,
> Vladimir

Ah the label, I thought you meant node.

camss: isp@value

Yes
---
bod