Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] media: qcom: camss: Add SM8750 support
From: Hangxiang Ma
Date: Wed Jul 22 2026 - 04:03:25 EST
On 7/22/2026 3:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 05:45:59AM -0700, Hangxiang Ma wrote:I understand the concern and agree that posting dependent work before the prerequisite series has been fully reviewed and cleared for merging is not ideal. The reason these series were posted at this stage was due to internal planning requirements and the need to keep work on other dependent platforms moving in parallel. The early review is aim to avoiding blocking them too much. That's a dilemma that I was asked to handle it in this way.
Add support for the RDI only CAMSS camera driver on SM8750. Enabling
RDI path involves adding the support for a set of CSIPHY, CSID and TFE
modules, with each TFE having multiple RDI ports. This hardware
architecture requires 'qdss_debug_xo' clock for CAMNOC to be functional.
SM8750 camera subsystem provides:
- 6 x CSIPHY (CSI Physical Layer)
- 3 x TPG (Test Pattern Generator)
- 3 x CSID (CSI Decoder)
- 2 x CSID Lite
- 3 x VFE (Video Front End), 5 RDI per VFE
- 2 x VFE Lite, 4 RDI per VFE Lite
This series has been tested using the following commands with S5KJN5 sensor.
- media-ctl --reset
- media-ctl -V '"msm_csiphy2":0[fmt:SGBRG10/4096x3072]'
- media-ctl -V '"msm_csid0":0[fmt:SGBRG10/4096x3072]'
- media-ctl -V '"msm_vfe0_rdi0":0[fmt:SGBRG10/4096x3072]'
- media-ctl -l '"msm_csiphy2":1->"msm_csid0":0[1]'
- media-ctl -l '"msm_csid0":1->"msm_vfe0_rdi0":0[1]'
- yavta --capture=20 -I -n 5 -f SGBRG10P -s 4096x3072 -F /dev/video0
Dependencies:
- https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260720-x1e-csi2-phy-v13-0-160c31958863@xxxxxxxxxx/
- https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260708-b4-linux-next-25-03-13-dtsi-x1e80100-camss-v12-0-f8588da41f16@xxxxxxxxxx/
- https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260720-kaanapali-camss-v15-0-c0b1c1167c5d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
None of these were cleared for merging. IOW, all received comments yet
you send work which depends on it.
This is exactly something Bjorn said a week ago or so. And then a few
other maintainers re-iterated. Exactly the same, nothing learnt.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
However, I understand that this can create additional review overhead and confusion regarding the status of the prerequisite work. Will transfer your concern internally to try to avoid other colleagues posting more series that has much long chain dependencies.
Apologies for the inconvenience, and thanks for the feedback.
Best regards,
Hangxiang