From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Jason Yang" <jason98166@gmail.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
neil.armstrong@linaro.org, vkoul@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
conor+dt@kernel.org, olteanv@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy: support per-direction phys
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:44:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260721104433.F38FB1F00ADE@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260721-dcphy-rx-v1-v1-1-4fc83c0ccac9@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] The `#phy-cells` property uses `enum: [1, 2]` instead of a `const` constraint, which violates subsystem guidelines and creates a fundamentally broken device tree parsing design.
- [High] The commit introduces a 2-cell format for `#phy-cells` to support independent TX/RX consumers, but the PHY driver actively rejects anything other than 1 cell, resulting in probe failures.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy: support per-direction phys ---
commit 0077b5ec50ff5c6cc10afd337f193a9f090d6946
Author: Jason Yang <jason98166@gmail.com>
dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy: support per-direction phys
The Samsung MIPI D-/C-PHY block on RK3588 drives a MIPI DSI transmitter
and, on the same PHY, can receive a MIPI CSI camera. Describing both as
independent consumers of one PHY requires the direction to be expressed
in the devicetree.
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy.yaml
> index c8ff5ba22a86b..53d6951375667 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy.yaml
> @@ -20,12 +20,22 @@ properties:
> maxItems: 1
>
> "#phy-cells":
> - const: 1
> + enum: [1, 2]
[Severity: High]
Does this violate the subsystem requirement that cell-count properties must
use a const constraint?
If a board developer updates the PHY provider node to #phy-cells = <2> to use
the new CSI consumer, will any existing DSI consumer relying on 1-cell parsing
fail to probe?
The function of_parse_phandle_with_args() strictly enforces that the consumer's
argument count exactly matches the provider's #phy-cells count.
Additionally, it looks like the driver hasn't been updated to support this yet.
In drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-samsung-dcphy.c, the translation callback
samsung_mipi_dcphy_xlate() still explicitly checks for exactly 1 cell:
if (args->args_count != 1) {
dev_err(dev, "invalid number of arguments\n");
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
Will this cause any device tree attempting to use the newly documented 2-cell
format to fail to initialize at runtime?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260721-dcphy-rx-v1-v1-0-4fc83c0ccac9@gmail.com?part=1
--
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-21 10:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-21 10:35 [PATCH 0/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: support the D-PHY receiver direction Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy: support per-direction phys Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:44 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: factor MIPI D-PHY power on/off into helpers Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: model TX and RX as separate PHYs Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: add MIPI D-PHY receiver support Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:57 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260721104433.F38FB1F00ADE@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jason98166@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox