[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd2754ee-ce89-4335-9974-6df4b612d3f7@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:26:11 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Bryan O'Donoghue <bod@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: qcom-mipi-csi2: Add a CSI2 MIPI D-PHY driver
On 7/14/25 5:17 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 14/07/2025 15:58, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>
>> This proposed device node scheme does not solve the known and already
>> discussed technical issue expectedly, namely there is no given way
>> to describe a combo mode hardware configuration, when two independant
>> sensors are wired to the same CSIPHY. This is an unsolvable problem
>> with this design.
>
> I think that is genuinely something we should handle in camss-csid.c maybe with some meta-data inside of the ports/endpoints..
>
>>
>> Sensors are conneced to CSIPHY IP blocks, CSIPHY is connected to CSID.
> My understanding of best practice is data-endpoints go into the consumer not the PHY.
At least in the case of USB, the PHY's of_graph includes signals that go
through said PHY (so HS for HS phys, RXTX for SS PHYs)
Konrad
>
> These are PHYs with their own SoC pins and voltage rails. They should look like other PHYs in qcom and across DT, IMO.
>
> ---
> bod
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists