Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sc7280-camss

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Bryan,

On 11/28/24 01:31, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 27/11/2024 12:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

+        camss: camss@acaf000 {
+            compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
+
+            reg = <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
+                  <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,

Unsurprisingly above is the error, which has been already reported for
enumerous amount of times, I wish to stop poking it eventually, please
reference to the previously given review comments and fix all of them
before sending a new version of the changes.

So just to be clear what is wrong here because it may not be clear.

1. Sort by IP name
2. The first address @ reg should be equal to the address @ camss

-> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,msm8953-camss.yaml

      camss: camss@1b00020 {
          compatible = "qcom,msm8953-camss";

          reg = <0x1b00020 0x10>,
                <0x1b30000 0x100>,
                <0x1b30400 0x100>,
                <0x1b30800 0x100>,
                <0x1b34000 0x1000>,
                <0x1b00030 0x4>,
                <0x1b35000 0x1000>,
                <0x1b00038 0x4>,
                <0x1b36000 0x1000>,
                <0x1b00040 0x4>,
                <0x1b31000 0x500>,
                <0x1b10000 0x1000>,
                <0x1b14000 0x1000>;
          reg-names = "csi_clk_mux",
                      "csid0",
                      "csid1",
                      "csid2",
                      "csiphy0",
                      "csiphy0_clk_mux",
                      "csiphy1",
                      "csiphy1_clk_mux",
                      "csiphy2",
                      "csiphy2_clk_mux",
                      "ispif",
                      "vfe0",
                      "vfe1";
So:

          camss: camss@acaf000 {
              compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";

              reg = <0x0 0x0acaf000 0x0 0x4000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acba000 0x0 0x1000>,
                    <0x0 0x0accf000 0x0 0x1000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acc1000 0x0 0x1000>,
                    <0x0 0x0ace0000 0x0 0x2000>,
                    <0x0 0x0ace2000 0x0 0x2000>,
                    <0x0 0x0ace4000 0x0 0x2000>,
                    <0x0 0x0ace6000 0x0 0x2000>,
                    <0x0 0x0ace8000 0x0 0x2000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acc4000 0x0 0x4000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acb6000 0x0 0x4000>,
                    <0x0 0x0accb000 0x0 0x4000>,
                    <0x0 0x0acbd000 0x0 0x4000>;
              reg-names = "vfe0",
                          "csid0",
                          "csid0_lite",
                          "csid1",
                          "csid1_lite",
                          "csid2",
                          "csiphy0",
                          "csiphy1",
                          "csiphy2",
                          "csiphy3",
                          "csiphy4",
                          "vfe0_lite",
                          "vfe1",
                          "vfe1_lite",
                          "vfe2";

So, apparently it is the third and the new proposed order of sorting. Any
following scheme is worse than the previous one in my opinion, but why not.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux