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

[Loic Poulain]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 11:45 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?

The CSIPHYs are connected to the CAMSS input ports, which can then be
multiplexed and routed to different CSIDs. The mux identifies its PHY
inputs using the hardware PHY IDs, so the CSIPHY4 is identified as the
CAMSS PHY4 input. In this configuration, PHY2 and PHY3 inputs are not
connected.

Regards,
Loic