Re: [PATCH v10 1/7] dt-bindings: media: qcom,x1e80100-camss: Add simple-mfd compatible

From: Bryan O'Donoghue

Date: Mon Mar 16 2026 - 08:01:17 EST


On 16/03/2026 07:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 01:02:01AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
Add "simple-mfd" as a second compatible string to allow child nodes
within the CAMSS block to probe as individual platform devices.

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

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml
index 2d1662ef522b7..b5654ef71bd89 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,x1e80100-camss.yaml
@@ -14,7 +14,11 @@ description:
properties:
compatible:
- const: qcom,x1e80100-camss
+ oneOf:
+ - const: qcom,x1e80100-camss
+ - items:
+ - const: qcom,x1e80100-camss
+ - const: simple-mfd
reg:
maxItems: 17
@@ -191,7 +195,7 @@ examples:
#size-cells = <2>;
camss: isp@acb7000 {
- compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-camss";
+ compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-camss", "simple-mfd";

You do not have any children here. And if you checked the DTS, you
would see this does not work.

Please post complete example and bindings.

I suspect that after posting complete picture we will see this is not a
simple-mfd device (child depends on parent).

Best regards,
Krzysztof


This is it:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260316-x1e-camss-csi2-phy-dtsi-v2-3-859f3fa55790@xxxxxxxxxx

Just broke up the series so that drivers/bindings could go through linux-media and the dtsi stuff through Bjorn.

I actually got the idea from:

commit fe6a952b567f6a771d087d2e969914f31574d6ab
Author: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Jan 27 20:40:50 2023 +0100

dt-bindings: soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: allow phys as child

The MIPI and DisplayPort phys are actually part of the Power Management
Unit system controller, thus allow them as its children, instead of
specifying as separate device nodes with syscon phandle.

Seems like a similar thing to me - its not a discoverable bus so not "simple-bus" but we do have a bunch of devices which exist inside of the CAMSS block.

I'm not very emotionally invested in sub-nodes - what do you think yourself ?

---
bod