Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Add CSI2 C-PHY/DPHY schema

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 12:20:56PM -0700, Vijay Kumar Tumati wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/9/2026 6:56 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 6/4/26 11:06 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > > On 04/06/2026 09:46, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > > On 6/4/26 03:30, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > > > > On 04/06/2026 01:07, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/4/26 00:18, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > > > > > > On 03/06/2026 21:51, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Actually, one more thing, Why isn't TITAN TOP GDSC here?>>>> +
> > > > > > > > If CSIPHYs are true subdevices under the umbrella CAMSS device and well
> > > > > > > > described as subnodes, then likely none of power domains are needed
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > CCI is not described as a child of CAMSS, here the situation is different.
> > > CCI probably_should_ be a child of CAMSS given the design we are going for here.
> > Yes
> As of now CCI is an independently usable device to configure any I2C slave
> that is connected to it. If it is to become a child of camss, it should be
> self contained, as it is now, and camss may have to become a simple-mfd to
> make the CCI independently probe-able? In which case, we may want to follow
> the same protocol for all other sub devices like PHY. However, if we do not
> have any requirement to use CCI independently (who can confirm this?),

Uno-Q uses CCI as a semi-independent i2c controller. There can be other
similar designs.

> probably, we can stick with devm_of_platform_populate() model with common
> resources at the CAMSS TOP node and sub-device specific resources (only) in
> the child devices.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry