From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bali.collaboradmins.com (bali.collaboradmins.com [148.251.105.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5511E386444; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 21:26:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772659594; cv=none; b=aHtgBOMS8a0HDGicjTjuQmsan23tnKoUTMh30ikK9YrX4fYjs9U86TnyeTjDhuWvxz4NFTK/zRMZq6m2ziIP1zPsMTcON46mv76xdAcMLJ9cak5SEveHe5K/DzF4kVQjB8pkJEfUh8dwfyX8fzsbnycmmeMX815bNy9dAKHzKxc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772659594; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Xnncoe1im22Gd++O66NN0sXnUSV5WQx7hFdbwwMeuE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ciEnwR2rQNcmP6pJTdKpY3u5bBDAmz6jKSVebFq1pniIBrpjoGNHKXgeBk9SNOvU7wS+6HehiWNq0FsnZEI0xaYomWxuOf0v/P5QifKrJ9JLNBZU492B22Iy2Yxl6c7k1aeOmvjTaHqCFaU+kU87IZbsLeSSWgP7xiMJXoT6ZRs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=hwVg+qqt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="hwVg+qqt" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1772659591; bh=4Xnncoe1im22Gd++O66NN0sXnUSV5WQx7hFdbwwMeuE=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hwVg+qqtO823WxAJrDdekGg0chWwLiX4jglTnkBf8EftMdLJo3X0ERvFktguk0FuT 5Myz8LO83G8etw3Kf1o65DY6ajSnktkLk0SVxlNFOV4eXoTEgsyKegFYlrVMaxsqQN ceibHgPOPhD5De4U5ydFOuWo19kTV4oCkD+AjoAwBk52ZNiDYsPmtsel9tz+lv2sD4 JUzY1dbGd55uTyFIdCs/RzD+9z9nUCPdFzqO8i0ryksDCvMcOmxENb5hrkUtNYeG5s z6J49eU0YAnrQ9oHoMN1CK934sTfUJGBEpwpCO7DLs8NV4VcVJAwNryRyZggEgMjHA qbTvF6TUanEyQ== Received: from [192.168.1.90] (unknown [86.123.23.225]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cristicc) by bali.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3EFB17E0A2D; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 22:26:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 23:26:30 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] media: dt-bindings: rockchip,vdec: Add alternative reg-names order for RK35{76,88} From: Cristian Ciocaltea To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Heiko Stuebner , Detlev Casanova , Ezequiel Garcia , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Nicolas Dufresne , Hans Verkuil , kernel@collabora.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Conor Dooley , linux-media@vger.kernel.org References: <20260226-vdec-reg-order-rk3576-v4-0-b8d72dc75250@collabora.com> <20260226-vdec-reg-order-rk3576-v4-1-b8d72dc75250@collabora.com> <20260227-observant-roaring-ara-ef7eb0@quoll> <20260227-omission-stoic-417d7109ad4d@spud> <3ab4f91e-37d0-4950-af88-01920705d31a@collabora.com> <1fe5529f-cd9f-4960-b6dd-96a2d02b8d86@kernel.org> <59b442c8-da2a-40a8-b9db-1609a8eee744@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/