On 19/02/2025 10:54, Sasha Finkelstein wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 10:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+
+  apple,platform-id:
+    description: Platform id for firmware
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32

No, use firmware-name.

Not sure how is firmware-name an appropriate field, fw-name is a string
that references a firmware file, while this field is an id that is sent to the
coprocessor firmware in order to identify the platform.

You get advice how you explain the hardware. Why do you need to identify
the platform? Compatible already tells that. Who identifies the
platform? For what purpose?

quoted

quoted

+  apple,temporal-filter:
+    description: Whether temporal filter should be enabled in firmware
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32

And why is this not enabled always? Why this is board specific?

Not every board has support for this feature.

Board for the same SoC, right?  It's fine then, but you should explain
all this in binding description.

quoted

You miss here ports or port. ISP usually gets signal from some camera or
other block.

For complex cameras - yes, but this is closer to a UVC camera connected
via a bespoke protocol. We do not need to deal with the sensor access,
all of it is managed by the coprocessor firmware.

And there is nothing more in this pipeline, like some other processing
units? It's fine then, but you should explain all this in binding
description.

quoted

quoted

+        properties:
+          apple,config-index:
+            description: Firmware config index
+            $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32

No duplicated indices. You have reg for this, assuming this is index.

There are duplicated indices, see isp-imx248.dtsi in patch 5 for an example.

I still do no understand their point and description does not help me much.

quoted

All these do not look like hardware properties but rather configuration
of sensor which should be done runtime by OS, not by DT.

Those are board-specific and not discoverable via the ISP protocol.

No, I rather suggest these should be runtime or deduced from the
compatible of the sensor. You know embed the sensor characteristics into
DT... or if not sensor then some user choice?


Best regards,
Krzysztof