Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document Milos compatible

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 11:43:07AM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Fri Feb 13, 2026 at 2:16 PM CET, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 2:18 PM CET, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 1/17/26 12:54 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 02:38:56PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >>>> Add Milos compatible for the CAMSS CCI interfaces.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml          | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml
> >>>> index a3fe1eea6aec..c57d81258fba 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml
> >>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ properties:
> >>>>        - items:
> >>>>            - enum:
> >>>>                - qcom,kaanapali-cci
> >>>> +              - qcom,milos-cci
> >>>>                - qcom,qcm2290-cci
> >>>>                - qcom,sa8775p-cci
> >>>>                - qcom,sc7280-cci
> >>>> @@ -263,6 +264,23 @@ allOf:
> >>>>              - const: cpas_ahb
> >>>>              - const: cci
> >>>>  
> >>>> +  - if:
> >>>> +      properties:
> >>>> +        compatible:
> >>>> +          contains:
> >>>> +            enum:
> >>>> +              - qcom,milos-cci
> >>>> +    then:
> >>>> +      properties:
> >>>> +        clocks:
> >>>> +          minItems: 3
> >>>> +          maxItems: 3
> >>>> +        clock-names:
> >>>> +          items:
> >>>> +            - const: soc_ahb
> >>>> +            - const: cpas_ahb
> >>>> +            - const: cci
> >>> 
> >>> Same comments as other discussion these days - I guess that soc_ahb
> >>> serves the same purpose as camnoc_axi, so this is just last entri in the
> >>> if:then: blocks.
> >>> 
> >>> I really find this binding terrible - around six names for AHB - so I do
> >>> not want another combination...
> >>
> >> I dug up the CCI doc, it talks about the CCI having a CC_CCI_CLK clock ("cci"
> >> here) and a CC_PBUS_CLK (AHB interface to the rest of the SoC).
> >>
> >> The CAMSS TOP doc (for Milos specifically, but I would assume there's a
> >> pattern) says that for access to CCI_0, I need to enable CAM_CC_CPAS_AHB_CLK
> >> and CAM_CC_CCI_0_CLK. CPAS is a wrapper inside CAMSS that contains most of
> >> the programmable IPs on there (notably not the CSIPHYs, at least not on this
> >> platform)
> >>
> >> It further mentions that GCC_SOC_AHB_CLK is required for *any* register
> >> access within CAMSS. Perhaps it sits right in front of the xNoC-to-CAMNoC
> >> interface.
> >>
> >> This only enforces my imagination of CAMSS being a fully contained "bus"
> >> (perhaps somewhat like AxNOC on 8996 represented with a simple-pm-bus)..
> >>
> >> +Dmitry, myself and a number of our colleagues were deliberating how to
> >> best represent the hardware going forward and I think we at some point waved
> >> the idea of putting every camera subdevice under a "camss: bus@ {}"-type node,
> >> which would hold the reference to the TITAN_TOP_GDSC. This seems fitting for
> >> housing the SOC_AHB clock as well and therefore concluding this discussion.
> >
> > How can we continue here? What change can I do to unblock this? I can't
> > tell whether soc_ahb == camnoc_axi for this platform so I need some help
> > here.
> 
> Any feedback on this?

I went on and checked. No Milos's soc_ahb != camnoc_axi. They serve
different purposes.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry