Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sm6150-camss

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 24/12/2025 06:36, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/24/2025 1:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 12:31:33PM +0800, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/24/2025 12:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 11:18:02AM +0800, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/23/2025 9:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 04:28:39PM +0800, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
>>>>>>> +  interconnects:
>>>>>>> +    maxItems: 4
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +  interconnect-names:
>>>>>>> +    items:
>>>>>>> +      - const: ahb
>>>>>>> +      - const: hf0_mnoc
>>>>>>> +      - const: hf1_mnoc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same comments as before, do not invent names.
>>>>>
>>>>> <&mmss_noc MASTER_CAMNOC_HF0 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS
>>>>> &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS>,
>>>>> <&mmss_noc MASTER_CAMNOC_HF1 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS
>>>>> &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS>,
>>>>>
>>>>> This platform(qcs615) is different from others. It has two types of sf,
>>>>> namely sf0 and sf1.
>>>>> The same as it is:
>>>>> sc7180 sc8180x sdm670 sdm845 sm8150
>>>>> Do you have any suggestions about this?
>>>>
>>>> Which _names_ are used on other platforms? This question is quite clear
>>>> from Krzysztof's comment.
>>>
>>> The platform mentioned above either has no camss ICC node or no support for
>>> CAMSS on the upstream, so this is a new one.
>>
>> I did a quick look for you.
>>
>> kodiak, lemans, monaco: ahb, hf_0
>>
>> x1e80100: ahb, hf_mnoc, sf_mnoc, sf_icp_mnoc
>> sm8650: ahb, hf_mnoc
>> agatti: ahb, hf_mnoc, sf_mnoc
>> sm8550: ahb, hf_0_mnoc
>>
>> sc8280xp: cam_ahb, cam_hf_mnoc, cam_sf_mnoc, cam_sf_icp_mnoc
>> sm8250: cam_ahb, cam_hf_0_mnoc, cam_sf_0_mnoc, cam_sf_icp_mnoc
>> sdm660: vfe-mem
>>
>> I'd obviously hope for some unification here. Other than that, we have
>> two clean winners: KLM and X Elite+SM8650+Agatti. Yours proposal is
>> different from either of the options. In fact, none of the platforms
>> have the same _approach_ as yours. Why?
>>
> 
> Yes, you're right.
> But none of the above cases involved having two hf_mnoc simultaneously, 
> so do you have any good suggestions for handling such a situation?

And this is your answer to use completely different style? This makes no
sense.

This is your logic:
1. If there is one HF, I will add underscore.
2. If there is more than one HF, I will remove underscore.

This makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Best regards,
Krzysztof