[PATCH v6 1/7] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy: Add SM8750 CSI2 PHY

[Hangxiang Ma]

On 7/22/2026 2:57 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 05:46:00AM -0700, Hangxiang Ma wrote:
>> The SM8750 camera subsystem exposes six CSI2 D-PHY blocks that follow the
>> same programming model as Kaanapali. Describe the SM8750 CSI2 PHY using a
> 
> No, SM8750 does not have the same programming model as Kaanapali. When
> SM8750 was created, there was no Kaanapali, so how it could have the
> same interface?
Will optimize the description for that. This description is not accurate 
and cause ambiguity.
>> "qcom,sm8750-csi2-phy" compatible with the "qcom,kaanapali-csi2-phy"
>> fallback, so the CAMSS binding can instantiate the CSIPHY nodes as
>> separate phy devices.
> 
> Redundant sentence.
ACK>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hangxiang Ma <hangxiang.ma at oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy.yaml        | 10 +++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy.yaml
>> index 7943049834f9..95375efb2597 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy.yaml
> 
> I just commented on very similar patch. This is confusing, there is no
> such file and I do not get why you keep adding some long chain of
> patches touching the same lines. Squash patches.
> 
> This is untestable.
> 
>> @@ -16,9 +16,13 @@ description:
>>   
>>   properties:
>>     compatible:
>> -    enum:
>> -      - qcom,kaanapali-csi2-phy
>> -      - qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy
>> +    oneOf:
>> +      - enum:
>> +          - qcom,kaanapali-csi2-phy
>> +          - qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy
>> +      - items:
>> +          - const: qcom,sm8750-csi2-phy
>> +          - const: qcom,kaanapali-csi2-phy
> 
> SM8750 came one year before Kaanapali, so how such compatibility is possible?
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

I acknowledge the truth that SM8750 is older than Kaanapali. I handle 
the compatible like this because the Kaanapali series was developed and 
posted earlier than SM8750.

I agree with you that handling compatible string in this way may raise 
unnecessary ambiguity of the relationship between these two series. I 
think it's better to treat them as separate ones and add additional 
compatible string standalone.

Could you please confirm whether the following format is acceptable or not?

properties:
   compatible:
    enum:
      - qcom,kaanapali-csi2-phy
      - qcom,sm8750-csi2-phy
      - qcom,x1e80100-csi2-phy

Best regards,
Hangxiang