[PATCH v3 1/2] media: dt-bindings: rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2: add rk3588 compatible

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 4:34 PM Michael Riesch
<michael.riesch at collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 3/25/26 22:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 11:25:34AM +0100, Michael Riesch wrote:
> >> The RK3588 MIPI CSI-2 receivers are compatible to the ones found in
> >> the RK3568.
> >> Introduce a list of compatible variants and add the RK3588 variant to
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh at kernel.org>
>
> First of all, apologies for applying your Acked-by tag. I figured
> resolving the merged conflict was trivial and impossible to screw up, but...

No worries. I would have kept it too.

> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch at collabora.com>
> >> ---
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2.yaml   | 10 +++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2.yaml
> >> index 4ac4a3b6f406..3d3b3cd78884 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2.yaml
> >> @@ -16,9 +16,13 @@ description:
> >>
> >>  properties:
> >>    compatible:
> >> -    enum:
> >> -      - fsl,imx93-mipi-csi2
> >> -      - rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2
> >> +    oneOf:
> >> +      - const: fsl,imx93-mipi-csi2
> >> +      - const: rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2
> >
> > These 2 should be a single enum as they were before.
>
> ... hm. Well.
>
> First, do you mean
>
> properties:
>   compatible:
>     oneOf:
>       - enum:
>          - fsl,imx93-mipi-csi2
>          - rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2
>       - items:
>          - enum:
>             - rockchip,rk3588-mipi-csi2
>          - const: rockchip,rk3568-mipi-csi2
> ?

Yes.

> If so, what is the practical difference?

First, then you aren't changing what's already there. For validation,
there is no difference other than failures with 'oneOf' give poor
error messages. It wouldn't be much better, just one less oneOf entry.

Rob