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

From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bod@kernel.org>
To: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org>,
	Vijay Kumar Tumati <vijay.tumati@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Add CSI2 C-PHY/DPHY schema
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 22:18:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <29e8491f-20e8-4082-8943-66bee7e3af1d@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f01c0e22-4e5c-44e7-9ea4-4bc8d53aea2e@linaro.org>

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.

---
bod

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