On 20/01/2026 18:58, Vijay Kumar Tumati wrote:

On 1/20/2026 1:35 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:42:51PM -0800, Hangxiang Ma wrote:

quoted

+      - description: Registers for RT CDM 1
+      - description: Registers for RT CDM 2
+      - description: Registers for RT CDM 3
+      - description: Registers for RT CDM 4
+      - description: Registers for TPG 0
+      - description: Registers for TPG 1
+      - description: Registers for TPG 2
+
+  reg-names:
+    items:
+      - const: csid0
+      - const: csid1
+      - const: csid2
+      - const: csid_lite0
+      - const: csid_lite1
+      - const: csiphy0
+      - const: csiphy1
+      - const: csiphy2
+      - const: csiphy3
+      - const: csiphy4
+      - const: csiphy5

Same comment as last time - nothing got resolved, nothing got concluded.

And before you claim without supporting arguments "we are not blocking"
let me clarify: yes, you are blocked, because I am not taking bindings
which are known to be incomplete, not finished and already being
changed/worked on.

Hi Bryan, can you please advise on how to go about this? I don't think I
see the driver support in CAMSS for separate CSIPHY nodes on linux-next.
Are we mandating anything about this wrt ongoing patches? Thanks.

Since 6.20 is close I'll hold off on posting a new large series but 
yeah, I have updates ready to go.

I'm thinking camss should have a "simple-bus" and instantiate the 
CSIPHYs as sub-nodes, instead of having them be entirely separate.

But sure, that'll come out in the wash.

FWIW I agree with Krzysztof, it's more important to zero-in on correct 
and sustainable long term bindings.

---
bod