Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: add camcc interconnect cells

[Atanas Filipov]

On 10/19/2026 5:50 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 08:07:01PM +0300, Atanas Filipov wrote:
> > Add #interconnect-cells to the camera clock controller so camera
> > consumers can request camera NoC AXI bandwidth through the
> > interconnect framework.
>
> I guess currently we have only one consumer, camss. Could you please
> include patches converting it to the bus voting? Be sure to retain
> compatibility with older DTs, which don't have ICC provided by the camcc
> node.

Before converting CAMSS I would like to agree on the approach, since it
cannot simply follow JPEG. In either case the camcc path would be
optional, so older DTs keep working as before.

OPP is per device, and CAMSS is a single device containing several VFEs, 
each with its own core clock and its own load. If CAMSS used 
dev_pm_opp_set_opp() on its device like JPEG does, every VFE would 
overwrite the clock and bandwidth votes of the others, which is the same 
last-writer-wins problem in a different place.

I see two ways to keep the VFEs independent:

1. One OPP table in the CAMSS node, used only as a lookup. Each VFE
   finds the OPP for its own required rate, sets its own clock and
   votes the bandwidth from that OPP on its own ICC path. The driver
   requests a separate path per VFE from the same "interconnects"
   entry, so DT describes the hardware connection once and the
   interconnect core aggregates the VFE requests with the other
   consumers. The rail level is not applied by the OPP core in this
   case, so CAMSS keeps handling it as today.

2. An OPP table per VFE, attached to the per-VFE power domain device
   that CAMSS already creates, so each VFE calls dev_pm_opp_set_opp()
   on its own device. This applies the rail level as well, but the
   virtual device shares the CAMSS of_node, so it would pick up all
   CAMSS interconnect paths and need indexed OPP tables in DT, which I
   have not seen used for such devices.

Which one would you prefer, or do you see a better way?

Best regards,
Atanas

> > Signed-off-by: Atanas Filipov <atanas.filipov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi | 1 +
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> > index f975c2183269a..e923c74dc1435 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> > @@ -4675,6 +4675,7 @@ camcc: clock-controller@ad00000 {
> >   			#clock-cells = <1>;
> >   			#reset-cells = <1>;
> >   			#power-domain-cells = <1>;
> > +			#interconnect-cells = <1>;
> >   		};
> >   
> >   		mdss: display-subsystem@ae00000 {
> > --
> > 2.34.1