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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/11/2026 13:04, Loic Poulain wrote:
> 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.

I could not find that information in Glymur HPG, but maybe I looked
wrong. CSID Wrapper lists CSID 0-2, not 0, 1 and 4, but again maybe I am
looking at wrong device description/interface...

Best regards,
Krzysztof