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

[Nihal Kumar Gupta <nihal.gupta@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 05-11-2026 13:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> What is the problem exactly you are solving?
>>>
>> The problem is that CSIPHY4 is connected to CAMSS interface 4, so the
>> graph should describe it as port@4, not port@2.
> Nothing like this is explained in commit msg.
> 
I will update commit message to explain it better.

>> The previous port@3 description only worked through the X1E80100 resource
>> table indirection:
>>
>>   port@3 -> csiphy_res[3] -> .csiphy.id = 4 -> CSID selects CSIPHY4
>>
>> New standalone PHY path:
>>   port@4 -> no csiphy_res[] lookup -> port number is id 4 -> CSID selects CSIPHY4
> Then this breaks existing users, no? Anyway, what stops you from having
> there proper mapping?
> 
No existing upstream user should break here; this is still part of the Glymur
CAMSS enablement.

This follows the earlier discussion that CSIPHY4 should use the
CAMSS-side interface index as its graph port number:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAFEp6-23L+4+yzVxX815ZA2x1_tN8SpzL7ciNcb9b+gBT67AdQ@mail.gmail.com/

> Did you find any existing practice of numbering ports logical numbering
> in this device, but some other logic coming from datasheet? Where?
> 

Glymur has only CSIPHY0, CSIPHY1 and CSIPHY4; CSIPHY2 and CSIPHY3 are not
present on the SoC. 

Using port@2 for CSIPHY4 would require a Glymur-specific port-to-CSIPHY mapping.
port@4 describes the CAMSS input directly and avoids introducing separate logical
numbering for Glymur.

-- 
Regards,
Nihal Kumar Gupta