Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: qcom-mipi-csi2: Add a CSI2 MIPI D-PHY driver

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

On 21/07/2025 16:46, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> On 15/07/2025 11:33, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 7/15/25 11:20 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> On 7/15/25 12:01, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/25 8:35 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/25 03:13, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/07/2025 16:30, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that is genuinely something we should handle in camss-csid.c
>>>>>>>> maybe with some meta-data inside of the ports/endpoints..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a CSIPHY property, a CSIPHY hardware configuration and a wiring
>>>>>>> of sensors to a CSIPHY. Where is the relation to CSID here? There is no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the PHY really needs to know is the # of lanes in aggregate, which
>>>>>> physical lanes to map to which logical lanes and the pixel clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should add additional support to the Kernel's D-PHY API parameters
>>>>>> mechanism to support that physical-to-logical mapping but, that's not
>>>>>> required for this series or for any currently know upstream user of CAMSS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please share at least a device tree node description, which supports
>>>>>>> a connection of two sensors to a single CSIPHY, like it shall be done
>>>>>>> expectedly.
>>>>>> &camss {
>>>>>>          port@0 {
>>>>>>              csiphy0_lanes01_ep: endpoint0 {
>>>>>>                  data-lanes = <0 1>;
>>>>>>                  remote-endpoint = <&sensor0_ep>;
>>>>>>              };
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              csiphy0_lanes23_ep: endpoint0 {
>>>>>>                  data-lanes = <2 3>;
>>>>>>                  remote-endpoint = <&sensor1_ep>;
>>>>>>              };
>>>>>>           };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you understand that this is broken?.. That's no good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please listen and reread the messages given to you above, your proposed
>>>>> "solution" does not support by design a valid hardware setup of two
>>>>> sensors connected to the same CSIPHY.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would propose to stop force pushing an uncorrectable dt scheme, it
>>>>> makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> If all you're asking for is an ability to grab an of_graph reference
>>>> from the camss (v4l2) driver, you can simply do something along the
>>>> lines of of_graph_get_remote_port(phy->dev->of_node)
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not about the driver specifics, my comment is about a proper
>>> hardware description in dts notation, please see the device tree node
>>> names.
>>
>> I'm a little lost on what you're trying to argue for..
>>
>> I could make out:
>>
>> 1. "the phy should be a multimedia device"
>> 2. "There is no ports at all, which makes the device tree node unusable,
>>     since you can not provide a way to connect any sensors to the phy."
>>
>> I don't really understand #1.. maybe that could be the case if the PHY
>> has a multitude of tunables (which I don't know if it does, but wouldn't
>> be exactly surprised if it did) that may be usecase/pipeline-specific
>>
>> As for #2, I do think it makes sense to connect the sensors to the PHY,
>> as that's a representation of electrical signals travelling from the
>> producer to the consumer (plus the data passed in e.g. data-lanes is
>> directly related to the PHY and necessarily consumed by its driver)
> 
> The port/endpoint should represent the data flow, and if the signal is the following:
> 
> sensor -> csiphy -> csid

I'll be honest.

I looked at your upstreamed code

drivers/phy/amlogic/phy-meson-axg-mipi-dphy.c 
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/parch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-khadas-vim3-ts050.dtsoc/meson-axg.dtsi

And didn't really think CSIPHY needed to be included in the data-graph.

---
bod