Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Add common qcom,csi2-phy

[Anusha Arun Nandi <anusha.nandi@oss.qualcomm.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for your comments.
I will upload a proper v2 patch with the lore links attached and
comments addressed.

Regards,
Anusha

On 11/3/2026 11:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/11/2026 22:41, Anusha Arun Nandi wrote:
>> SA8775P, QCS8300 and SC7280 CSI2 PHYs are bit-for-bit identical in
>> devicetree shape (ports, bus-type, data-lanes, operating-points-v2,
>> clocks, single "top" power-domain, vdda-phy/vdda-pll supplies).
>>
>> Describe all three with a single qcom,csi2-phy.yaml and a compatible
>> oneOf, rather than one standalone schema per SoC. QCS8300 is further
>> required to be paired with a qcom,sa8775p-csi2-phy fallback
>> compatible, the same way other Qualcomm bindings express full
>> hardware compatibility between two SoCs (see qcom,qusb2-phy.yaml);
>> this lets the driver bind QCS8300 nodes via its qcom,sa8775p-csi2-phy
>> match entry rather than carrying a duplicate one.
>>
>> qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy.yaml is a separate PHY with a different shape
>> (3 clocks, 3 power-domains, different supply names, DPHY split-mode
>> support) and is left untouched.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jigarkumar Zala <jigarkumar.zala@oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> How is it possible? There was no such patch, this is basically v1.
> 
> If this is v2, please provide changelog and lore links pointing to the
> review.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Anusha Arun Nandi <anusha.nandi@oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
> and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older
> kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base
> your patches on recent Linux kernel.
> 
> Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of
> people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some
> ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline) or work on fork of kernel
> (don't, instead use mainline). Just use b4 and everything should be
> fine, although remember about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new
> patches to the patchset.
> 
> You missed at least devicetree list (maybe more), so this won't be
> tested by automated tooling. Performing review on untested code might be
> a waste of time.
> 
> Please kindly resend and include all necessary To/Cc entries.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof