Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: mtk-mipi-csi: add driver for CSI phy

[Julien Stephan]

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 04:32:42PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 15/05/23 16:07, Julien Stephan ha scritto:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 02:22:52PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > +#define CSIxB_OFFSET		0x1000
> > >
> > > What if we grab two (or three?) iospaces from devicetree?
> > >
> > > - base (global)
> > > - csi_a
> > > - csi_b
> > >
> > > That would make it possible to maybe eventually extend this driver to more
> > > versions (older or newer) of the CSI PHY IP without putting fixes offsets
> > > inside of platform data structures and such.
> > >
> > Hi Angelo,
> > The register bank of the CSI port is divided into 2:
> > * from base address to base + 0x1000 (port A)
> > * from base + 0x1000 to base +0x2000 (port B)
> > Some CSI port can be configured in 4D1C mode (4 data + 1 clock) using
> > the whole register bank from base to base + 0x2000 or in 2D1C mode (2 data +
> > 1 clock) and use either port A or port B.
> >
> > For example  mt8365 has CSI0 that can be used either in 4D1C mode or in
> > 2 * 2D1C and CSI1 which can use only 4D1C mode
> >
> > 2D1C mode can not be tested and is not implemented in the driver so
> > I guess adding csi_a and csi_b reg value may be confusing?
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Ok so we're talking about two data lanes per CSI port... it may still be
> beneficial to split the two register regions as
>
> reg-names = "csi-a", "csi-b"; (whoops, I actually used underscores before,
>                                and that was a mistake, sorry!)
>
> ....but that would be actually good only if we are expecting to get a CSI
> PHY in the future with four data lanes per port.
>
> If you do *not* expect at all such a CSI PHY, or you do *not* expect such
> a PHY to ever be compatible with this driver (read as: if you expect such
> a PHY to be literally completely different from this one), then it would
> not change much to have the registers split in two.
>
> Another case in which it would make sense is if we were to get a PHY that
> provides more than two CSI ports: in that case, we'd avoid platform data
> machinery to check the number of actual ports in the IP, as we would be
> just checking how many register regions we were given from the devicetree,
> meaning that if we got "csi-a", "csi-b", "csi-c", "csi-d", we have four
> ports.
>
> Besides, another thing to think about is... yes you cannot test nor implement
> 2D1C mode in your submission, but this doesn't mean that others won't ever be
> interested in this and that other people won't be actually implementing that;
> Providing them with the right initial driver structure will surely make things
> easier, encouraging other people from the community to spend their precious
> time on the topic.
>
Hi Angelo,
Ok, I see your point, but for future potential upgrade to support A/B
ports I was thinking of something else: adding independent nodes for csixA
and csixB such as:

csi0_rx: phy@11c10000 {
  reg = <0 0x11C10000 0 0x2000>;
  mediatek,mode = <4D1c>;
  ...
};

csi0a_rx: phy@11c10000 {
  reg = <0 0x11C10000 0 0x1000>;
  mediatek,mode = <2D1c>;
  ...
};
csi0b_rx: phy@11c11000 {
  reg = <0 0x11C11000 0 0x1000>;
  mediatek,mode = <2D1c>;
  ...
};

giving the correct register range. One thing I did not mention is that if
csi0_rx is used csi0a_rx and csi0b_rx cannot be used (they share same
physical lanes as csio_rx), but csi0a_rx and csi0b_rx can be used simultaneously.
So platform device will enable only the node(s) it needs and enabling
csi0_rx and csioa/b_rx will fail because they share the same register
region and map will fail and it does not have any sense because you
either have a camera using the whole port or sub port but you cannot have
both plugged in. What do you think about it?

> > > > +#define CSIxB_OFFSET		0x1000
Maybe moving this declaration in phy-mtk-mipi-csi-0-5-rx-reg.h would be
better?

Regards,
Julien
> Regards,
> Angelo
>