Hi Krzysztof,

On 3/7/26 16:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 03:09:48PM +0100, Michael Riesch wrote:

quoted

The RK3588 MIPI CSI-2 receivers are compatible to the ones found in
the RK3568. However, their integration in the respective SoC may be
different when it comes to the (currently not implemented) split

All this says they are compatible, so express it.

..express it... how exactly? In the commit message? Or what do you mean
exactly?

quoted

DPHY feature. Therefore, add the RK3588 compatible to allow for
future differentiation.

This I do not understand. If you just copy standard rules from
writing-bindings, then no, don't do that. It's obvious and there is
never a need to repeat any standard/common rule. If you want to say
devices are not compatible, then say that explicitly.

It's a bit of a complicated story. To keep it short, the RK3568 and the
RK3588 MIPI CSI-2 receivers are compatible at least right now. In
future, this may or may not change. This depends on how this split DPHY
integration is implemented -- and we won't know that for some time.
Right now I expect that the phys property will become optional when this
happens (at least for the RK3568).

What is the safe bet here? Going for a fallback compatible and adjust
everything when the split DPHY feature is implemented?

Best regards,
Michael