linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: qcom-mipi-csi2: Add a CSI2 MIPI D-PHY driver

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

Message-ID: <53a19b1d-5665-4937-a07c-5dd1fcde06c5@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:35:14 +0300
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...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 7/15/25 03:13, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 14/07/2025 16:30, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that is genuinely something we should handle in camss-csid.c
>>> maybe with some meta-data inside of the ports/endpoints..
>>>
>>
>> This is a CSIPHY property, a CSIPHY hardware configuration and a wiring
>> of sensors to a CSIPHY. Where is the relation to CSID here? There is no.
> 
> All the PHY really needs to know is the # of lanes in aggregate, which
> physical lanes to map to which logical lanes and the pixel clock.
> 
> We should add additional support to the Kernel's D-PHY API parameters
> mechanism to support that physical-to-logical mapping but, that's not
> required for this series or for any currently know upstream user of CAMSS.
> 
>> Please share at least a device tree node description, which supports
>> a connection of two sensors to a single CSIPHY, like it shall be done
>> expectedly.
> &camss {
>       port@0 {
>           csiphy0_lanes01_ep: endpoint0 {
>               data-lanes = <0 1>;
>               remote-endpoint = <&sensor0_ep>;
>           };
> 
>           csiphy0_lanes23_ep: endpoint0 {
>               data-lanes = <2 3>;
>               remote-endpoint = <&sensor1_ep>;
>           };
>        };
> };

Don't you understand that this is broken?.. That's no good.

Please listen and reread the messages given to you above, your proposed
"solution" does not support by design a valid hardware setup of two
sensors connected to the same CSIPHY.

I would propose to stop force pushing an uncorrectable dt scheme, it
makes no sense.

-- 
Best wishes,
Vladimir