[PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Add CSI2 C-PHY/DPHY schema

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 6/10/26 12:30 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 12:20:56PM -0700, Vijay Kumar Tumati wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/9/2026 6:56 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 6/4/26 11:06 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2026 09:46, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>> On 6/4/26 03:30, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/06/2026 01:07, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/4/26 00:18, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 21:51, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, one more thing, Why isn't TITAN TOP GDSC here?>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> If CSIPHYs are true subdevices under the umbrella CAMSS device and well
>>>>>>>>> described as subnodes, then likely none of power domains are needed
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> CCI is not described as a child of CAMSS, here the situation is different.
>>>> CCI probably_should_ be a child of CAMSS given the design we are going for here.
>>> Yes
>> As of now CCI is an independently usable device to configure any I2C slave
>> that is connected to it. If it is to become a child of camss, it should be
>> self contained, as it is now, and camss may have to become a simple-mfd to
>> make the CCI independently probe-able? In which case, we may want to follow
>> the same protocol for all other sub devices like PHY. However, if we do not
>> have any requirement to use CCI independently (who can confirm this?),
> 
> Uno-Q uses CCI as a semi-independent i2c controller. There can be other
> similar designs.

CCI still physically lies within the camera subsystem and needs both the
TOP_GDSC and the AHB/CPAS clocks to be on.

devm_of_platform_populate() will ensure that subdevices will be probed.
simple-mfd is essentially a hack/shortcut to call that function for nodes
which aren't bound to drivers (e.g. because they represent something
without a top-level software interface, which is rarely true and why it
seems to be discouraged)

Konrad