[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e51e0d29-f455-463f-9324-6ee0459df067@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:12:12 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
andrey.konovalov@...aro.org
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/15] media: qcom: camss: Fix support for setting
CSIPHY clock name csiphyX
On 26.08.2023 14:08, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 26/08/2023 11:13, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 23.08.2023 12:44, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> Several of our upstream and soon-to-be upstream SoC CAMSS dtsi declare
>>> csiphyX as opposed to the older clock name csiX_phy.
>> This only reinforces my point about adding like csiphy_clks or so
>>
>> Konrad
>
> I really don't understand your point. Could you please restate it ?
If we categorized the clocks at probe time (these ones go to csiphy, these
ones go to vfe or whatever), name matching like this could be avoided
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists