On 01/06/2026 10:49, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the patch.
On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 03:08:10PM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
From: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
So far, only D-PHY mode was supported, which uses even bits when enabling
or masking lanes. For C-PHY configuration, the hardware instead requires
using the odd bits.
Since there can be unrecognized configuration allow returning failure.
Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Cory Keitz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
---
.../platform/qcom/camss/camss-csiphy-2ph-1-0.c | 8 ++--
.../platform/qcom/camss/camss-csiphy-3ph-1-0.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-csiphy.c | 5 +--
drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-csiphy.h | 6 +--
4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
[...]
-static void csiphy_lanes_enable(struct csiphy_device *csiphy,
- struct csiphy_config *cfg,
- s64 link_freq, u8 lane_mask)
+static int csiphy_lanes_enable(struct csiphy_device *csiphy,
+ struct csiphy_config *cfg,
+ s64 link_freq, u8 lane_mask)
{
+ struct device *dev = csiphy->camss->dev;
struct csiphy_lanes_cfg *c = &cfg->csi2->lane_cfg;
struct csiphy_device_regs *regs = csiphy->regs;
u8 settle_cnt;
u8 val;
int i;
settle_cnt = csiphy_settle_cnt_calc(link_freq, csiphy->timer_clk_rate);
- val = CSIPHY_3PH_CMN_CSI_COMMON_CTRL5_CLK_ENABLE;
- for (i = 0; i < c->num_data; i++)
- val |= BIT(c->data[i].pos * 2);
+ val = 0;
+
+ switch (c->phy_cfg) {
+ case V4L2_MBUS_CSI2_CPHY:
+ for (i = 0; i < c->num_data; i++)
+ val |= BIT((c->data[i].pos * 2) + 1);
+ break;
+ case V4L2_MBUS_CSI2_DPHY:
+ val = CSIPHY_3PH_CMN_CSI_COMMON_CTRL5_CLK_ENABLE;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < c->num_data; i++)
+ val |= BIT(c->data[i].pos * 2);
+ break;
+ default:
+ dev_err(dev, "Unsupported bus type %d\n", c->phy_cfg);
+ return -EINVAL;
If this is the only reason why you're changing the return type to int, I'd
suggest using WARN_ON() in this case. I presume it'd take a driver bug for
this to trigger?
Thank you for the review.
If others agree, I would also prefer WARN_ON instead of changing return values.
David
[...]
