Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: media: qcom,glymur-camss: Use CSIPHY indices for ports

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 05/11/2026 10:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/11/2026 10:53, Loic Poulain wrote:
> > So some chipsets share the same IP blocks, with some block/phy
> > instances disabled. As a result, we need to decide whether we're
> > numbering based on active instances or on the actual hardware instance
> > index/offset. If we use active-instance numbering, then yes, it should
> > be @2 (CSIPHY4 being the third active instance). Alternatively, if the
> > port numbering is intended to reflect the hardware instance offset,
> > matching the register prop, then @4 would be more appropriate. It also
> > has the advantage of directly identifying the underlying hardware
> > instance, without requiring any additional driver-side mapping. In any
> > case, @3 is incorrect.
> >
> > That said, since the bindings have already been merged in its current
> > form, we'll need to preserve backward compatibility when addressing
> > this.
>
> This is the input port to camss, so how is it called in camss, not the
> csi phy?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

When you have legacy PHYs the port number indicates the PHY - this has 
been the case since 2015.

With standalone PHYs the port number just means "input data port here" 
with no specific hardware mapping

Which to me implies the correct port numbering for systems which have a 
standalone PHY is {0, 1, 2}

On hamoa which supports both legacy and new we have to stick to the old 
way of {0, 1, 2, 4}

Since any PHY can mux to any CSI decoder the old port scheme should IMO 
be dropped for new standalone PHY DTs.

Not sure what to do about Glymur since the example is upstream already.

---
bod