[PATCH v3 1/3] media: dt-bindings: rockchip,vdec: Add alternative reg-names order for RK35{76,88}

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:26:37AM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >> Sorry, but I don't quite get why would this be a better approach than just
> >> properly list the items according to the HW layout, i.e. following the
> >> address-based ordering?
> > 
> > We always expect the list to grow, to have common set. That's rule given
> > during reviews multiple times. For multiple reasons, also explained
> > (consistency, maintenance and actually proper description of hardware
> > like the main reg address space).
> > 
> > Probably this was also given to that binding during discussions when it
> > was upstream, so your change reverts previous discussion and to that I
> > do not agree.
> 
> Thank you for detailing this, I get your point now.
> 
> After digging a bit further, it looks like the "function" naming has been
> introduced as part of the RK3588 support via commit c6ffb7e1fb90 ("media:
> dt-bindings: rockchip: Document RK3588 Video Decoder bindings").
> 
> Morever, it also sets `reg-names: false` for all the SoCs other than RK3588 -
> sorry for missing this initially.
> 
> Hence "function" wasn't used at all in the context of the older SoCs, while on
> RK3588 & RK3576 there is no indication that "function" should be treated as the
> main address space or anything like that.  E.g. RK3588 TRM clearly shows the
> "link" range at the top of the listing, starting at video decoder unit base
> address:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Config Register                         |   Base addr
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> VDPU381 core0/1 link table config base  |   VDPU381_core0/1_base+0x000
> VDPU381 core0/1 function config base    |   VDPU381_core0/1_base+0x100
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                         |   VDPU381_core0/1_base+0x600 for Y channel
> VDPU381 core0/1 cache config base       |   VDPU381_core0/1_base+0x640 for C channel
>                                         |   VDPU381_core0/1_base+0x680 for head channel
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Assuming the reasoning above is now good enough to move further with the
> proposed approach, I can prepare a new revision dropping the unnecessary
> one-entry item from the reg-names, while keeping all the rest in the series as
> is.

Yes, with drop of the oneOf this would be fine.

> 
> Regards,
> Cristian
>