[PATCH 4/8] arm64: dts: qcom: shikra: Add CAMSS node

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 01/06/2026 07:42, Nihal Kumar Gupta wrote:
> Here is the full IOMMU SID list for both platforms:
> Agatti (QCM2290):
> - 0x0400 0x00 — VFE non-protected
> - 0x0800 0x00 — CDM non-protected
> - 0x0820 0x00 — OPE read non-protected
> - 0x0840 0x00 — OPE write non-protected
> 
> Shikra:
> - 0x0400 0x00 — VFE non-protected
> - 0x0600 0x00 — CDM non-protected
> - 0x0620 0x00 — OPE read non-protected
> - 0x0640 0x00 — OPE write non-protected

What this tells me is that the Agatti binding is incorrect for addition 
of OPE as a separate device.

> Only VFE SID (0x0400) is shared between the two platforms.

Both platforms have the same IOMMU list, its just that you are 
correcting a bug in Agatti's defintion.

Again only IFE SIDs should be included in CAMSS...

> The current Shikra submission enumerates only the VFE SID.

Great, this is what we want.

I think for future submissions we need to be commenting, naming, 
something each IOMMU entry as we have a problem now in Agatti and a 
legacy problem - already - in VIDC as a result of misallocated IOMMU 
entries.
> Should CDM and OPE each get a separate YAML binding like [1], or
> should both be part of the CAMSS YAML binding? If part of CAMSS,
> please confirm and we will add their SIDs in the DTS in the next revision.
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260508-camss-isp-ope-v3-9- 
> bb1055274603 at oss.qualcomm.com/

Yes I think CDM should be a standalone block and BTW use standard DMA 
APIs with its own IOMMU entry.

Similarly so OPE.

The CAMSS node should only contain the IFE SIDs.

So, actually I think your IOMMU defintion is correct but Agatti is not.

Sigh.

---
bod