[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cab95caa-9ffb-446a-858b-342939e80811@mleia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:06:17 +0300
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@...cinc.com>, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...cinc.com, Yongsheng Li <quic_yon@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] dt-bindings: media: camss: Add qcom,sm8550-camss
binding
On 9/13/24 01:41, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 12/09/2024 21:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> 3. Required not optional in the yaml
>>>
>>> => You can't use the PHY without its regulators
>>
>> No, the supplies shall be optional, since it's absolutely possible to have
>> such a board, where supplies are merely not connected to the SoC.
>
> For any _used_ PHY both supplies are certainly required.
>
> That's what the yaml/dts check for this should achieve.
I believe it is technically possible by writing an enormously complex
scheme, when all possible "port" cases and combinations are listed.
Do you see any simpler way? Do you insist that it is utterly needed?
In any case, there are optional and required device tree properties,
the CAMSS supplies shall be split into multiple ones and become optional.
That's exactly the point of my first message in the discussion, so far
nothing has been added or changed.
--
Best wishes,
Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists