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

[Michael Riesch]

Hi Rob,

On 3/26/26 20:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the clarification. v4 coming up.

> 
>> 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.

I'll try to keep that one in mind!

Best regards,
Michael