Re: [PATCH 07/13] dt-bindings: media: camss: Add qcom,sm8550-camss binding

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

Hi Depeng.

On 9/30/24 12:26, Depeng Shao wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> On 9/25/2024 11:40 PM, Depeng Shao wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir, Bryan,
>>
>> On 9/18/2024 7:16 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> Hi Bryan,
>>>
>>> On 9/18/24 01:40, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> On 13/09/2024 06:06, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/24 01:41, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/09/2024 21:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>> 3. Required not optional in the yaml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         => You can't use the PHY without its regulators
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the supplies shall be optional, since it's absolutely possible to
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> such a board, where supplies are merely not connected to the SoC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For any _used_ PHY both supplies are certainly required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what the yaml/dts check for this should achieve.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe it is technically possible by writing an enormously complex
>>>>> scheme, when all possible "port" cases and combinations are listed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you see any simpler way? Do you insist that it is utterly needed?
>>>>
>>>> I asked Krzysztof about this offline.
>>>>
>>>> He said something like
>>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>> This is possible, but I think not between child nodes.
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc7/source/Documentation/
>>>> devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml#L194
>>>>
>>>> You could require something in children, but not in parent node. For
>>>> children something around:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc7/source/Documentation/
>>>> devicetree/bindings/net/qcom,ipa.yaml#L174
>>>>
>>>> allOf:
>>>>      - if:
>>>>          required:
>>>>            - something-in-parent
>>>>        then:
>>>>          properties:
>>>>            child-node:
>>>>              required:
>>>>                - something-in-child
>>>>
>>>> I will see if I can turn that into a workable proposal/patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> thank you for pushing my review request forward.
>>>
>>> Overall I believe making supply properties as optional ones is
>>> sufficient,
>>> technically straightforward and merely good enough, thus please let me
>>> ask you to ponder on this particular variant one more time.
>>>
>>
>> So, we are discussing two things.
>>
>> 1# Use separate supplies for each CSI block, looks like there is no
>> doubt about it anymore. So, I will update it just like based on suggestion.
>>
>> csiphyX-vdda-phy-supply
>> csiphyX-vdda-pll-supply
>>
>> Then I will need below items in the required list if they are required.
>> required:
>>     - csiphy0-vdda-phy-supply
>>     - csiphy0-vdda-pll-supply
>>     - csiphy1-vdda-phy-supply
>>     - csiphy1-vdda-pll-supply
>> ...
>>     - csiphy7-vdda-phy-supply
>>     - csiphy7-vdda-pll-supply
>>
>> 2# Regarding the CSI supplies, if they need to be making as optional?
>> Looks like there is no conclusion now.
>>
>> @Bryan, do you agree with this?
>>
> 
> I'm preparing the new version patches, and will send out for reviewing
> in few days. I will follow Vladimir's comments if you have no response,
> it means making supply properties as optional one, so they won't be
> added to the required list.
> 

Recently I published the change, which moves regulator supplies from CSID
to CSIPHY, I believe it makes sense to base the SM8550 change and regulators
under discussion on top of the series:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240926211957.4108692-1-vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org/

Note, that SM8250 regulators are not changed, however their names are wrong,
the correction shall be a separate change later on...

Next, I developed my opinion regarding the supply regulator property names:

1) voltage supply regulator property names match the pattern "*v*-supply",
    and the most common name is "vdd*-supply", the match to the pattern shall
    be preserved,
2) also it would be much better and it will exclude any confusion, if SoC pin
    names are put into the name, like it is done in a multitude of similar
    cases.

So, in my opinion for SM8550 CAMSS a proposed set of voltage supply regulator
names should be this one:

- vdda-csi01-0p9-supply
- vdda-csi01-1p2-supply
- vdda-csi23-0p9-supply
- vdda-csi23-1p2-supply
- vdda-csi46-0p9-supply
- vdda-csi46-1p2-supply
- vdda-csi57-0p9-supply
- vdda-csi57-1p2-supply

Comments, corrections and objections are always welcome.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir