Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] dt-bindings: phy: Add PHY_TYPE_DSI and PHY_TYPE_CSI definitions
Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.linux-phy,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-rockchip,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260813-imposing-cunning-raven-fcad40@quoll> |
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 12:33:52PM +0800, 楊智成 wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Thanks for the review. > > > Your new binding is lacking too. If you select <&mipidcphy0 PHY_TYPE_CSI> > > you defined the direction of the PHY, but will it operate in C-PHY or in > > D-PHY mode? > > You are right, and I am sorry - this is a regression I introduced in v3. > > v2 already described these as two separate cells: the first selected the > electrical layer, and the second selected the direction. Michael Riesch > suggested using the generic PHY_TYPE_DSI/PHY_TYPE_CSI constants for the > second cell instead of the Rockchip-private RK_DCPHY_DIR_* constants [1], > and Vinod Koul agreed [2]. > > In v3, while making that change, I also mistakenly collapsed the two cells > into one. That is what lost the electrical-layer information you pointed > out. > > For v4, I will go back to the v2 layout and only rename the second cell. > This keeps the two dimensions separate, with each cell describing one > thing: > > /* MIPI DSI host - the transmitter */ > phys = <&mipidcphy0 PHY_TYPE_DPHY PHY_TYPE_DSI>; > > /* MIPI CSI-2 host - the receiver */ > phys = <&mipidcphy0 PHY_TYPE_DPHY PHY_TYPE_CSI>; > > The same applies to C-PHY, so the binding can express all four combinations > without any further changes: > > phys = <&mipidcphy0 PHY_TYPE_CPHY PHY_TYPE_DSI>; > phys = <&mipidcphy0 PHY_TYPE_CPHY PHY_TYPE_CSI>; > > The driver accepts all four combinations at phy_get() time and returns > -EOPNOTSUPP from power_on() for the C-PHY combinations, as it did before > this series. Boards that only wire up the transmitter keep > '#phy-cells = <1>', so the existing in-tree device trees remain unaffected. > > Before sending v4, I will go through the code and commit messages again, > so that the reasoning above is captured in the commits themselves rather > than only in this thread. I will also re-test the series on the board. What is with this practice (third posting I see this week) of pasting as reply prompts/tasks for AI? All this is just wrong approach and your patches will be ignored if you act as a proxy and keep playing with us that way. Best regards, Krzysztof -- linux-phy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy