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

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

Hi Bryan,

On 6/3/2026 2:46 PM, Vijay Kumar Tumati wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/3/2026 2:18 PM, 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 
>>> to be
>>> repeatedly described in the children device nodes, since this 
>>> information
>>> can be obtained from the parent device by the driver.
>>>
>>> Technically 'power-domains' property can be safely removed, I believe.
>>
>> The policy is to describe the power-domain dependency fully since DT 
>> describes hardware not software architecture.
>>
>> Also for a very practical reason a sub-devices can probe/run 
>> asynchronously of the parent device being active so in fact we do need 
>> to describe the PDs fully.
> This makes me think. When the PHY devices are made the sub nodes of the 
> top camss node eventually, we can discuss for somethings to be avoided 
> in each child, which we can come to later but for now, you need to add 
> the top AHB clock as well in the PHY node, Bryan.>
Sorry, scratch this comment. You are indeed making PHYs as sub nodes to 
the top CAMSS and not independent nodes like CCI.Just looked at your DTS 
series and realized. I will let the discussion about enumerating TOP 
resources in every child node continue in the other thread. Thanks.>> ---
>> bod
> Thanks,
> Vijay.

Thanks,
Vijay.

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