Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sc7280-camss

Vladimir Zapolskiy
2024-11-28T08:54:11Z

Hi Bryan,

On 11/28/24 01:31, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 27/11/2024 12:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> + camss: camss@acaf000 {
>>> + compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
>>> +
>>> + reg = <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>> + <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>
>> Unsurprisingly above is the error, which has been already reported for
>> enumerous amount of times, I wish to stop poking it eventually, please
>> reference to the previously given review comments and fix all of them
>> before sending a new version of the changes.
>
> So just to be clear what is wrong here because it may not be clear.
>
> 1. Sort by IP name
> 2. The first address @ reg should be equal to the address @ camss
>
> -> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,msm8953-camss.yaml
>
> camss: camss@1b00020 {
> compatible = "qcom,msm8953-camss";
>
> reg = <0x1b00020 0x10>,
> <0x1b30000 0x100>,
> <0x1b30400 0x100>,
> <0x1b30800 0x100>,
> <0x1b34000 0x1000>,
> <0x1b00030 0x4>,
> <0x1b35000 0x1000>,
> <0x1b00038 0x4>,
> <0x1b36000 0x1000>,
> <0x1b00040 0x4>,
> <0x1b31000 0x500>,
> <0x1b10000 0x1000>,
> <0x1b14000 0x1000>;
> reg-names = "csi_clk_mux",
> "csid0",
> "csid1",
> "csid2",
> "csiphy0",
> "csiphy0_clk_mux",
> "csiphy1",
> "csiphy1_clk_mux",
> "csiphy2",
> "csiphy2_clk_mux",
> "ispif",
> "vfe0",
> "vfe1";
> So:
>
> camss: camss@acaf000 {
> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
>
> reg = <0x0 0x0acaf000 0x0 0x4000>,
> <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
> <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
> <0x0 0x0acba000 0x0 0x1000>,
> <0x0 0x0accf000 0x0 0x1000>,
> <0x0 0x0acc1000 0x0 0x1000>,
> <0x0 0x0ace0000 0x0 0x2000>,
> <0x0 0x0ace2000 0x0 0x2000>,
> <0x0 0x0ace4000 0x0 0x2000>,
> <0x0 0x0ace6000 0x0 0x2000>,
> <0x0 0x0ace8000 0x0 0x2000>,
> <0x0 0x0acc4000 0x0 0x4000>,
> <0x0 0x0acb6000 0x0 0x4000>,
> <0x0 0x0accb000 0x0 0x4000>,
> <0x0 0x0acbd000 0x0 0x4000>;
> reg-names = "vfe0",
> "csid0",
> "csid0_lite",
> "csid1",
> "csid1_lite",
> "csid2",
> "csiphy0",
> "csiphy1",
> "csiphy2",
> "csiphy3",
> "csiphy4",
> "vfe0_lite",
> "vfe1",
> "vfe1_lite",
> "vfe2";

So, apparently it is the third and the new proposed order of sorting. Any
following scheme is worse than the previous one in my opinion, but why not.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir