On 3/16/26 04:39, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 04:12:35AM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

On 3/16/26 03:02, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:

quoted

Add "simple-mfd" as a second compatible string to allow child nodes
within the CAMSS block to probe as individual platform devices.

Why are there any child nodes representing platform devices?

There is no necessity of it, please use a layout similar to CAMSS CCI
modelling.

I'd say it differently. I think, putting CCI device outside of the CAMSS
node is a mistake. In the hardware all those devices are a part of the
separate block, they share the same NoC fabric, etc.

A simple-mfd model could be considered and pretty often it's usage makes
great sense, but likely it's not the case here, when phys are childen of
a factual CSI decoder. So far an umbrella/container device has not been
considered to the best of my knowledge.

OTOH I see no issue in placing phandles to the same exploited resources
under multiple device tree nodes, the ultimate goal is to provide a proper
hardware description.

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
---
   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml | 8 ++++++--
   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
Best wishes,
Vladimir