On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 02:20:26PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 10/27/25 2:14 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 11:27:53AM +0800, yuanjiey wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 02:02:45PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >>> On 10/23/25 1:48 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 03:53:50PM +0800, yuanjie yang wrote: > >>>>> From: Yuanjie Yang <[email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>>> Add DSI PHY support for the Kaanapali platform. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yongxing Mou <[email protected]> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yuanjie Yang <[email protected]> > >>>>> --- > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>>> + .io_start = { 0x9ac1000, 0xae97000 }, > >>>> > >>>> These two addresses are very strange. Would you care to explain? Other > >>>> than that there is no difference from SM8750 entry. > >>> > >>> They're correct. > >>> Although they correspond to DSI_0 and DSI_2.. > >>> > >>> Yuanjie, none of the DSI patches mention that v2.10.0 is packed with > >>> new features. Please provide some more context and how that impacts > >>> the hw description. > >> > >> Thanks for your reminder. > >> > >> Correct here: > >> io_start = { 0x9ac1000, 0x9ac4000 } DSI_Phy0 DSI_phy1 > >> > >> And v2.10.0 no clearly meaningful changes compared to v2.9.0. > >> just some register address change. > > > > Addition of DSI2 is a meaningful change, which needs to be handled both > > in the core and in the DSI / DSI PHY drivers. > > DSI2 was introduced in 8750 already, but it was done without any > fanfare.. > > I see a diagram that shows an XBAR with inputs from DSI0 and DSI2, > and an output to DSI0_PHY (same thing on kaanapali - meaning this > patch is potentially wrong and should ref DSI1_PHY instead?)
Most likely. -- With best wishes Dmitry
