| Message ID | 20250425-b4-media-committers-25-04-25-camss-supplies-v1-0-2a3dd3a47a6a@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | media: qcom: camss: x1e80100: Add support for individual CSIPHY supplies | expand |
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:01:51 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > Declare a CSIPHY regulator pair 0p8 and 1p2 for each CSIPHY. > > Name the inputs based on the voltage so as to have a consistent naming of > these rails across SoCs and PCBs. > > There are no upstream users of this yaml definition yet so this change is > safe to make. > > Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> > --- > .../bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: yamllint warnings/errors: ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:153:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:156:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:159:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:162:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:165:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:168:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:171:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:174:7: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 6 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:193:5: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:196:5: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:199:5: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4 (indentation) ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml:202:5: [warning] wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4 (indentation) dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20250425-b4-media-committers-25-04-25-camss-supplies-v1-1-2a3dd3a47a6a@linaro.org The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency should be noted in *this* patch. If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to date: pip3 install dtschema --upgrade Please check and re-submit after running the above command yourself. Note that DT_SCHEMA_FILES can be set to your schema file to speed up checking your schema. However, it must be unset to test all examples with your schema.
In x1e each CSIPHY has its own 0p8 and 1p2 voltage rail. These voltage rails in previous SoCs were shared between PHYs, over time the hardware differentiated out the rails per PHY but CAMSS didn't keep-up with or know about that change. We have two options to support individual rails per PHY. - Logical naming of the supply lines In this case supply names describe the PHY and its expected voltage input For example vdd-csiphy0-0p8-supply for the 0v8 voltage rail to CSIPHY 0. - Pin naming of the supply lines In this case supply names will align to the name of the SoC pin. For example on x1e the supply name would be vdd vdd-a-csi-0-1-1p2. This series chooses the first approach for the following reasons: - Naming coherency across SoCs and PCBs. Virtually every CSIPHY has 0p8 and 1p2 voltage rails and these are akin to an architectural feature of these PHYs or at the very least a common pattern across SoCs. This means that the pin name on x1e might be VDD_A_CSI_0_1_1P2 and on qcm2290 VDD_A_CSI_0_1P2 but the yaml standard will be for the regulator name to be vdd-csiphy0-1p2-supply. - Accounting for upstreamers who don't have schematic or qcom IP access Not everybody making upstream submissions has access to schematics or to Qualcomm's SoC-level pin definitions instead working from vendor/downstream DT information. It should still be possible to construct a valid upstream definition from that downstream DT. - The counter arugment. The counter argument is that aligning the pin-names to the regulator names is less error prone and I agree with that statement. What I'd say here is - the requirement for CAMSS regulator defintions in DT at least from my perspective is a putative upstreamer should be able to show how they have tested a given DT submission. If that submission isn't tested, it isn't working and should be rejected. That should then address the concern of having as another example: vdd-csiphy0-0p8-supply = <&vreg_oops_wrong_regulator>; I'm promulgating this series in the context of x1e but it should also unblock qcm2290 and sm8650. Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> --- Bryan O'Donoghue (2): dt-bindings: media: qcom,x1e80100-camss: Fixup csiphy supply names media: qcom: camss: x1e80100: Fixup x1e csiphy supply names .../bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++++----- drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss.c | 16 +++---- 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 1d1e564fce1bc361af1a1980a7f915a0475a008a change-id: 20250425-b4-media-committers-25-04-25-camss-supplies-6285c5006da2 Best regards,