Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sm6150-camss
From: Wenmeng Liu
Date: Wed Dec 24 2025 - 05:30:07 EST
On 12/24/2025 5:46 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 24/12/2025 06:36, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
On 12/24/2025 1:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 12:31:33PM +0800, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
On 12/24/2025 12:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 11:18:02AM +0800, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 04:28:39PM +0800, Wenmeng Liu wrote:
+ interconnects:
+ maxItems: 4
+
+ interconnect-names:
+ items:
+ - const: ahb
+ - const: hf0_mnoc
+ - const: hf1_mnoc
Same comments as before, do not invent names.
<&mmss_noc MASTER_CAMNOC_HF0 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS
&mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS>,
<&mmss_noc MASTER_CAMNOC_HF1 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS
&mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS>,
This platform(qcs615) is different from others. It has two types of sf,
namely sf0 and sf1.
The same as it is:
sc7180 sc8180x sdm670 sdm845 sm8150
Do you have any suggestions about this?
Which _names_ are used on other platforms? This question is quite clear
from Krzysztof's comment.
The platform mentioned above either has no camss ICC node or no support for
CAMSS on the upstream, so this is a new one.
I did a quick look for you.
kodiak, lemans, monaco: ahb, hf_0
x1e80100: ahb, hf_mnoc, sf_mnoc, sf_icp_mnoc
sm8650: ahb, hf_mnoc
agatti: ahb, hf_mnoc, sf_mnoc
sm8550: ahb, hf_0_mnoc
sc8280xp: cam_ahb, cam_hf_mnoc, cam_sf_mnoc, cam_sf_icp_mnoc
sm8250: cam_ahb, cam_hf_0_mnoc, cam_sf_0_mnoc, cam_sf_icp_mnoc
sdm660: vfe-mem
I'd obviously hope for some unification here. Other than that, we have
two clean winners: KLM and X Elite+SM8650+Agatti. Yours proposal is
different from either of the options. In fact, none of the platforms
have the same _approach_ as yours. Why?
Yes, you're right.
But none of the above cases involved having two hf_mnoc simultaneously,
so do you have any good suggestions for handling such a situation?
And this is your answer to use completely different style? This makes no
sense.
This is your logic:
1. If there is one HF, I will add underscore.
2. If there is more than one HF, I will remove underscore.
This makes absolutely NO SENSE.
Would it make sense to use hf_0_mnoc and hf_1_mnoc to differentiate the two paths?
Thanks,
Wenmeng