Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Add CSI2 C-PHY/DPHY schema

[Vijay Kumar Tumati <vijay.tumati@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 6/9/2026 6:56 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 6/4/26 11:06 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> On 04/06/2026 09:46, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> On 6/4/26 03:30, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2026 01:07, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>> On 6/4/26 00:18, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 21:51, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually, one more thing, Why isn't TITAN TOP GDSC here?>>>> +
>>>>>>> If CSIPHYs are true subdevices under the umbrella CAMSS device and well
>>>>>>> described as subnodes, then likely none of power domains are needed
> [...]
> 
>>> CCI is not described as a child of CAMSS, here the situation is different.
>> CCI probably_should_ be a child of CAMSS given the design we are going for here.
> Yes
As of now CCI is an independently usable device to configure any I2C 
slave that is connected to it. If it is to become a child of camss, it 
should be self contained, as it is now, and camss may have to become a 
simple-mfd to make the CCI independently probe-able? In which case, we 
may want to follow the same protocol for all other sub devices like PHY. 
However, if we do not have any requirement to use CCI independently (who 
can confirm this?), probably, we can stick with 
devm_of_platform_populate() model with common resources at the CAMSS TOP 
node and sub-device specific resources (only) in the child devices.

Thanks,
Vijay.

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy