Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Add CSI2 C-PHY/DPHY schema

Dmitry Baryshkov
2026-03-30T11:49:22Z

On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 01:34:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 3/30/26 11:25 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > On 30/03/2026 10:17, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> >> On 3/30/26 11:02, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> >>> On 30/03/2026 08:49, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> >>>> On 3/27/26 18:42, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> >>>>> On 27/03/2026 15:28, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> >>>>>>> To be frankly honest you can make an argument for it either way. However my honestly held position is analysing other upstream implementations connecting to the PHY means we can't make the PHY device a drivers/phy device - it would have to be a V4L2 device and then for me the question is why is that even required ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is plain wrong, DT definition is different from software implementation, you can do whatever you want if you describe HW accurately.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure what point it is you are trying to make here. Are you trying to say drivers/phy is OK with you but you want an endpoint ? If so, please just say so.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm against using the "phys = <>" property in the CAMSS to reference the PHYs, a "PHY" in the classic terminology is tied to a single consumer, and if it can be shared to multiple consumer you must model a mux or whatever in the middle.
> >>>
> >>> The CSIPHY-to-CSID routing is runtime-configurable and is already managed by the media controller framework.
> >>
> >> This is not compatible with the PHY bindings if you don't have a defined MUX device in the middle, it's wrong. You're hiding the muxing details in the CAMSS blob node.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> DT describes static hardware connections. The dynamic mux is a software concern, not a hardware description concern.
> >>
> >> DT must describe the possible interconnections between the nodes, if a PHY can be used by multiple hardware components, it must be described.
> >
> > But right now the CAMSS block is described as a single block. There is no CSID device in the kernel _yet_.
> >
> > When we break CSID into its own block then fine, lets have a debate about a mux then but right now the "nodes" are CAMSS[MONOLITH] <=> CSIPHY there is no DT CSID device to model this to.
>
> Let's take a step back - since any CSIPHY can feed into any CSID (at runtime),
> the resulting nodes would either look like:
>
> // hardcoded, m may != n
> csid_n: csid@1000000 {
> phys = <&csiphy_m>;
> };
>
> or
>
> // determined at runtime
> csid_n: csid@1000000 {
> phys = <&csiphy_0>,
> [...]
> <&csiphy_n-1>;
> };

I think the bigger problem is:

&csid_L: {
phys = <&csiphy_M>;
};

&csid_N: {
phys = <&csiphy_M>;
};

aka split mode.

>
> or we could store them once, centrally, in the "CAMSS_TOP" node and
> pass handles around as necessary:
>
> // camss "catalog/manager" driver/library provides CSIDn with PHYm
> camss: camss@10000000 {
> phys = <&csiphy_0>,
> [...]
> <&csiphy_n-1>;
>
> csid_n: csid@1000 {
> // no PHY references
> };
> };
>
> Konrad

--
With best wishes
Dmitry