Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] dt-bindings: phy: Add MIPI CSI PHY for i.MX8Q

[Frank Li <Frank.li@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:18:08PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 12:18:10PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > Add MIPI CSI phy binding doc for i.MX8QXP, i.MX8QM and i.MX8ULP.
>
> s/CSI/CSI-2/ in the subject line, here and below.
> s/phy/PHY/
>
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > change from v1 to v2
> > - Add missed fsl,imx8qm-mipi-cphy, which failback to fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy
> > - Move reg to required. Previous 8ulp use fsl,offset in downstream version.
> > which should be reg. So move it to required
> > ---
> >  .../bindings/phy/fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy.yaml        | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..7335b9262d0e7
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: Freescale i.MX8 SoC MIPI CSI PHY
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx>
> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  "#phy-cells":
> > +    const: 0
> > +
> > +  compatible:
> > +    oneOf:
> > +      - enum:
> > +          - fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy
> > +          - fsl,imx8ulp-mipi-cphy
> > +      - items:
> > +          - const: fsl,imx8qm-mipi-cphy
> > +          - const: fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy
>
> Why are those called cphy when, as far as I can tell from the
> documentation, they are D-PHYs ? Does that stand for *C*SI PHY ?

There are already have D-PHYS for MIPI display phy binding. cphy just means
for camera PHY.

> I find
> it slightly confusing, but not so much that I'd ask for a change. It's
> just a name at the end of the day.
>
> Apart from that the binding looks fairly OK. Except maybe from the fact
> that this device is not a PHY :-( It has two PHY control registers, but
> the rest seems related to the glue logic at the output of the CSI-2
> receiver. I wonder if we should go the syscon route.

Do you means use phandle to syscon node in csi-2 driver? Actually this
ways is not perferred by device tree team because it should be exported
as what actual function, such as PHY or RESET by use standard interface.

We met similar case at other substream.

Frank

>
> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  power-domains:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - "#phy-cells"
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +
> > +allOf:
> > +  - if:
> > +      properties:
> > +        compatible:
> > +          contains:
> > +            enum:
> > +              - fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy
> > +    then:
> > +      required:
> > +        - power-domains
> > +
> > +additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    phy@58221000 {
> > +            compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-mipi-cphy";
> > +            reg = <0x58221000 0x10000>;
> > +            #phy-cells = <0>;
> > +            power-domains = <&pd 0>;
> > +    };
> > +
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart