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

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 02/07/2026 09:31, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > > phy-cells = 1 with CPHY/DPHY specified in the consumer, as was Rob's
> > > > suggestion will specify the mode.
> > >
> > > This cell is just not needed, and unneeded complexity should not be 
> > > added.
> >
> > I'm going to stick to Rob's initial guidance on this.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/20250710230846.GA44483- 
> > robh@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Sure, the discussion will be continued abouve v9 of the series, it's
> just a chance to do it now. Rob properly pointed out, that the invented
> "phy-type" is not needed at all.

I'll quote here

>> +  phy-type:
>> +    description: D-PHY or C-PHY mode
>> +    enum: [ 10, 11 ]
>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32

> Perhaps putting this in phy cells would be better because the consumer
> decides on the mode.

A clear instruction which I'm implementing.

> Ther fact is that the whole placement of the CSIPHY to phy subsystem
> looks execessive, since you add a driver for a media device, there will
> be nothing PHY driver specific left in the CSIPHY driver but name.
No, a block with its own pins, external voltage rails, even its own 
specific votes to scale individual clocks, is a distinct PHY.

There will be no further CSIPHY init sequences getting buried in CAMSS. 
It is well past time to dispense with the monolith.

---
bod