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

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

On 04-11-2026 21:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Glymur describes CSI2 PHYs as standalone nodes, but the CAMSS binding
>>>> still models CSIPHY4 as port@3 from the X1E80100 csiphy_res[] layout,
>>>> where entry 3 carried CSIPHY id 4.
>>> You also remove port 2 without explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Describe the hardware connection directly by allowing ports 0, 1 and 4,
>>>> and using port@4 for CSIPHY4.
>>> All this is confusing, why do you introduce gaps? What is the reason?
>>> Your datasheet naming does not matter.
>> Glymur CAMSS has populated inputs for CSIPHY0, CSIPHY1 and CSIPHY4, so I
>> used a sparse pattern for those ports only.
> port@0 is CSIPHY0
> port@1 is CSIPHY1
> port@2 is CSIPHY4
> 
> 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.

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

>> That is confusing for the schema. I will allow the continuous range
>> port@0 through port@4 and keep the example limited to the populated
>> Glymur ports.

-- 
Regards,
Nihal Kumar Gupta