From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bali.collaboradmins.com (bali.collaboradmins.com [148.251.105.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 882FA33DEFE; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 08:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773046210; cv=none; b=FC5BOXVgztnE6i4YVioEzOZSvnxi0WGUCrZqcx8JlZpBBOEA5Df9+Z9p+gFfdfxXw8Pv8aQR+oKtG9kUR3gifQWPgDCwJ3FXZHEyFYqD+KRLmc8ZHD1woWnzefoGYXbf5VUniPTqSrEMYbzEyHlYu4zsV4vDAs63nFXyVZPUz0Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773046210; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FxAl0QIkPydcsKFhFovYjX6NFk7PTnRn1mUjEL9vK3A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=mFfZlfn3dvzjgcyBDCG5ZiyTbRWLt1N6ho6WywmBAnmgBY7IdesGVQlL/85n5qH8KULRy6DCNKY72VtZui2KPB7LvT0EWntDo66CX5/ugLSSO0FY700/z0BWC3va8qYwxaVzG/1CavLHPZ3rd80Zo5lFD4+7LjuFO9nhxD+2gcA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=NM3yuWFh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="NM3yuWFh" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1773046201; bh=FxAl0QIkPydcsKFhFovYjX6NFk7PTnRn1mUjEL9vK3A=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=NM3yuWFhnNgYJktHRtGaEsoEEo/PYzJqlGkkh7OcNJBvXA4IVULQcBbyH3NtZWqPh jpKl5L9x3F9FiKKyP4XgDcXA55+L2gL3AWaeS2bu3BAcC+WUF24DKykNnAStxwGYu0 7Kkchxr0NdKBMwvnmjSWaD6prqtw7bqgK0fxi3DMnrQQcRrkZ5spvEnjRMOIrVTF+w lMSuwRfCJrF4fdlRnO/CRmHnKxhxjifWeHEphUHwQdI0Tkj5tLcGZ8Qh9zk1Cehc5T eon+ToZ2mR4jiZAtqG/RVMNO4l49NZAVD2mQG1xgwMR7+pppeub+kox3Iwo+92qzOj VmUgFiCC6TB5Q== Received: from [10.40.0.100] (185-67-175-126.lampert.tv [185.67.175.126]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mriesch) by bali.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EFDE17E01B1; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 09:50:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 09:50:00 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] media: dt-bindings: rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2: add rk3588 compatible To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Sakari Ailus , Laurent Pinchart , Frank Li , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Heiko Stuebner , Kever Yang , Collabora Kernel Team , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260305-rk3588-csi2rx-v1-0-0cd8d2bf28c0@collabora.com> <20260305-rk3588-csi2rx-v1-1-0cd8d2bf28c0@collabora.com> <20260307-complex-finicky-skua-bf52bd@quoll> Content-Language: en-US From: Michael Riesch In-Reply-To: <20260307-complex-finicky-skua-bf52bd@quoll> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Krzysztof, On 3/7/26 16:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 03:09:48PM +0100, Michael Riesch wrote: >> The RK3588 MIPI CSI-2 receivers are compatible to the ones found in >> the RK3568. However, their integration in the respective SoC may be >> different when it comes to the (currently not implemented) split > > All this says they are compatible, so express it. ..express it... how exactly? In the commit message? Or what do you mean exactly? >> DPHY feature. Therefore, add the RK3588 compatible to allow for >> future differentiation. > > This I do not understand. If you just copy standard rules from > writing-bindings, then no, don't do that. It's obvious and there is > never a need to repeat any standard/common rule. If you want to say > devices are not compatible, then say that explicitly. It's a bit of a complicated story. To keep it short, the RK3568 and the RK3588 MIPI CSI-2 receivers are compatible at least right now. In future, this may or may not change. This depends on how this split DPHY integration is implemented -- and we won't know that for some time. Right now I expect that the phys property will become optional when this happens (at least for the RK3568). What is the safe bet here? Going for a fallback compatible and adjust everything when the split DPHY feature is implemented? Best regards, Michael