Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] media: dt-bindings: rockchip,vdec: Add alternative reg-names order for RK35{76,88}

[Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>]

On 3/3/26 2:26 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 2/28/26 11:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 28/02/2026 10:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2026 18:42, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/26 7:13 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 01:37:17PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof, Conor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/27/26 9:46 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:46:53PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>>>>>> With the introduction of the RK3588 SoC, and RK3576 afterwards, two more
>>>>>>>> register blocks have been provided for the video decoder unit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the binding does not properly describe the new hardware layout,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you shown me last time with excerpt of address spaces from
>>>>>>> datasheet/manual, the binding correctly describes the hardware and above
>>>>>>> sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as it breaks the convention expecting the unit address to indicate the
>>>>>>>> start of the first register range, i.e. 'function' block is listed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imprecise wording. "start of the main or primary register range"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (if you have 0x1000 with one reg and 0x20000000 with everything, the
>>>>>>> unit address will be 0x20000000).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> before 'link' instead of the opposite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the binding changes have been already released and a fix would
>>>>>>>> bring up an ABI break, mark the current 'reg-names' ordering as
>>>>>>>> deprecated and introduce an alternative 'link,function,cache' listing
>>>>>>>> which follows the address-based ordering according to the TRM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Additionally, drop the 'reg' description items as the order is not fixed
>>>>>>>> anymore, while the information they offer is not very relevant anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is fine for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the additional feedback!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I'm not mistaken (please correct me), the only remaining (hard)
>>>>>> blocker for the series would be to improve this commit message.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you also need to fix the problem I pointed out about reg-names being
>>>>> optional on the devices you're relying on reg-names for. 
>>>>
>>>> My only concern is that by marking reg-names as required we would break the ABI,
>>>
>>> You are ALREADY BREAKING the ABI. Really, for absolutely non-important
>>> cosmetic change in unit address, where I asked you repeatedly to fix the
>>> unit address, you change the ABI affecting kernel and DTS users.
> 
> I thought we've already reached consensus to allow extending the binding and
> keep both lists, precisely to avoid breaking the ABI.  At least this was my
> understanding according to your reply [1]:
> 
>   You can have also oneOf with older list "deprecated: true", if want to
>   keep any users unaffected.
> 
> And this patch was meant to do exactly that.  Did I miss something?
> 
>>> This is barely acceptable, but I am just annoyed already explain it to
>>> you multiple times.
> 
> There is no need to explain it again, we've got your point.  We've also brought our
> arguments and I had the impression that we eventually agreed to keep the unit
> address unchanged, based on your comments [2]:
> 
>   Yes, with drop of the oneOf this would be fine.
>   I meant, the "one item option" in oneOf.
> 
> Is this not applicable anymore?
> 
>>> But now you claim, you can break ABI for cosmetic unimportant change,
> 
> No, breaking ABI wasn't our intention here.  If we put the issue with reg-names
> being optional aside for a moment (as that one will be handled separately), is
> there still a problem with the current revision?
> 
>>> but actually doing something meaningful is a no-go?
> 
> Making reg-names mandatory has been already clarified with Conor and agreed [3]
> to be handled in a dedicated patch.  And that one will indeed break the ABI, but
> it's unavoidable, unfortunately. 
> 
>>> At least use correct arguments if you want to discuss.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure what do you mean.  I really believed that we managed to
> address all the open topics by now.

I've just submitted v5.  For some reason the link to the cover letter [1]
doesn't seem to work, I'm getting:

  Message-ID <20260304-vdec-reg-order-rk3576-v5-0-7006fad42c3a@collabora.com>
  not found

But all the others are just fine, e.g. [2] is the for the 1st patch.  I've never
encountered something similar before.

Regards,
Cristian

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260304-vdec-reg-order-rk3576-v5-0-7006fad42c3a@collabora.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260304-vdec-reg-order-rk3576-v5-1-7006fad42c3a@collabora.com/