Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add Qualcomm JPEG V4L2 encoder for SM8250

["Gjorgji Rosikopulos (Consultant)" <gjorgji.rosikopulos@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 7/9/2026 12:21 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 08/07/2026 13:19, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 7/7/26 12:41 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2026 11:11, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/26 12:00 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2026 10:24, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/26 3:37 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 14:02, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> OK, I can see how this thread is confusing.
>>>
>>> The idea is to start to declare sub-nodes "on the road" to making camss into a bus. The legacy binding we have is really for the IFE domain - that is CSIPHY, CSID, IFE.
>>>
>>> Right now the camss binding describes those things - so linking say OPE or JPEG back to the thing that describes those isn't right.
>>>
>>> OTOH we_want_ to make the top-level binding into a bus, we've discussed that several times.
>>>
>>> To transition from monolith IFE-domain only, to camss-bus, we should have the sub-nodes fully describe themselves as "camss-bus" doesn't exist yet.
>>>
>>> Once we have compat="camss-bus" then fine, make that linkage, I fully support that.
>>>
>>> That roadmap BTW is why I'm asking Antanas and Loic to make JPEG and OPE sub-nodes of camss - but make them complete sub-nodes - power-domains, clocks, nocs, including the TOP_GDSC.
>> I think this needlessly increases the amount of combinations we'll
>> have to keep supporting down the line (with a ton of compatibility
>> boilerplate code)
>>
>> Konrad
> 
> Fine.
> 
> Lets drop the bus idea then. I'm happy to close the conversation as peer-nodes.
> 
> camss@{
>     existing CSID/IFE
>     IFE SID stuff goes here
>     power-domains = TITAN_TOP_GDSC, IFE_GDSC
> }
> 
> csiphy @ {
> }
> 
> jpeg@ {
>     JPEG SID stuff goes here
>     power-domains = TITAN_TOP_GDSC, JPEG_GDSC
> }
> 
> camnoc@ {
>     modelled as an ICC provider and consumed by
> }
> 

I vote for this as well. For me having resources at parent side which are already referenced counted, is
not justifying the complexity we are adding. Another argument is that i don not like the exceptions, either
we move every hw block as child device of CAMMS including CCI or go with peer-nodes.

~Gjorgji

> ---
> bod
>