linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: media: qcom,x1e80100-camss: Fixup csiphy supply names

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <364500a3-3343-42c2-a0cb-05a1bf39936c@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:26:16 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Todor Tomov <todor.too@...il.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com,
 loic.poulain@....qualcomm.com, vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: media: qcom,x1e80100-camss: Fixup
 csiphy supply names

On 28/04/2025 08:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Block has VDD_A_CSI_0_1_1P2 input, not separate one for CSI0 and CS1.
> I don't get what is the benefit of this and commit msg does not help me
> to understand such choice.
> 
> On IRC I clarified you could have less supplies in the binding than
> number of actual pins, to make things simpler and more consistent, but
> you did here reverse: more supplies which do not exist.

So the idea here is to make a consistent

- csiphy#-voltage-XpY

Which means that each PHY will have voltage rail names like

vdd-csiphy0-0p8
vdd-csiphy0-1p2
vdd-csiphy0-1p8

Irrespective of the SoC pin name.

The motivation for that is to have the names be consistent across SoCs 
which is I believe what we have discussed should be the case.

That means that each phy will have its own named set of voltage rails, 
consistently named across SoCs even if the pin-name is shared by the 
PHYs on the SoC pinout.

Is that not the namespace consistency you've been looking for ?

---
bod