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 D06EA1DF26E; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 00:26:08 +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=1772497570; cv=none; b=Jui7Isf4bwWPcV4sYpc5BcfeEQcspCyAC0y1uFPz432ayk4I4llIjZNWVXirRb+n6Jj2vs+KXQlDo+SBoSuuo8mJweRqqKbhtnpJY+FChfYh6vkZW0IjHSqkqtNBYNU5ducmVRQ7CMUn9Ml9YJUdn88qq9NXvkh9QDem5UgkBBQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772497570; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nvbePl0CEYS4+L/6FTUnYwtO7w+lj1CwvH0QATF0abw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=YTfcscFKAU7P2MYBhB+1VCKGm+9+CGhvrQkD6B45daCilcEbjmmQjgYJ6VeQtm/PrqWGr2bG0ATIWZDfeKa/EuhHzxuvYTWgLY6Y1ZEUG8YV46HAkA/z/6pI9J5uQ9RQpx5/zHUpp1XVNyMRVqm/bU2JLpadBY8lmQJWlKyeM0A= 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=l2TquD5C; 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="l2TquD5C" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1772497567; bh=nvbePl0CEYS4+L/6FTUnYwtO7w+lj1CwvH0QATF0abw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=l2TquD5CV5jD/gLJ3IBBpxsFsPaNM0jbvYXpMcVZB+R6GX2G5hZSDjH1TLO/VvqWh LiLMLOQiXb8Q/7TkVbjWoEUtEEnHZNn+goDvA7scw/ghQfNgkLuC406bTduv7svO2p y84SqoWMUmMtAkfSkOkZM+zI5m+b2Q1QzjzszNV7rf2JOXPr4LTpyicI1y3PCybrF5 k31wAmOAY3snxOHJfwiYXA7xYIyaFI0jz8PDnwpCTYWLXEVbFfuFQEBuZtDmeBx1LS QoMS9mHsMi3WvHbYsKJcHZPzriAbinthd0KzI7NeYRRCye7m8DuqZukQ4SWdKrDHi1 qvIKnj+ewDlGQ== 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 5B36A17E0EA0; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 01:26:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 02:26:05 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@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} 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 From: Cristian Ciocaltea In-Reply-To: <59b442c8-da2a-40a8-b9db-1609a8eee744@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. Thanks, Cristian [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1cdc36f2-6e51-492a-9063-7d0a784f5118@kernel.org/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/12b30229-1c55-429d-8a3c-0d831c4d33ab@kernel.org/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260227-urologist-gratitude-7984733f2d41@spud/