Hi Laurent Pinchart, Thanks for the feedback. > -----Original Message----- > From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 2:47 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] dt-bindings: display: renesas,rzg2l-du: Document RZ/G2UL DU bindings > > Hi Biju, > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:05:59AM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > On Saturday, July 27, 2024 1:50 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:51:41PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > > > Document DU found in RZ/G2UL SoC. The DU block is identical to > > > > RZ/G2L SoC, but has only DPI interface. > > > > > > > > While at it, add missing required property port@1 for RZ/G2L and > > > > RZ/V2L SoCs. Currently there is no user for the DPI interface and > > > > hence there won't be any ABI breakage for adding port@1 as > > > > required property for RZ/G2L and RZ/V2L SoCs. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v1->v2: > > > > * Updated commit description related to non ABI breakage. > > > > * Added Ack from Conor. > > > > --- > > > > .../bindings/display/renesas,rzg2l-du.yaml | 32 +++++++++++++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,rzg2l-du.yaml > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,rzg2l-du.yaml > > > > index 08e5b9478051..c0fec282fa45 100644 > > > > --- > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,rzg2l-du.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,rzg2l-du.y > > > > +++ aml > > > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties: > > > > compatible: > > > > oneOf: > > > > - enum: > > > > + - renesas,r9a07g043u-du # RZ/G2UL > > > > - renesas,r9a07g044-du # RZ/G2{L,LC} > > > > - items: > > > > - enum: > > > > @@ -60,9 +61,6 @@ properties: > > > > $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port > > > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > > > > > > > - required: > > > > - - port@0 > > > > - > > > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > > > > > > > renesas,vsps: > > > > @@ -88,6 +86,34 @@ required: > > > > > > > > additionalProperties: false > > > > > > > > +allOf: > > > > + - if: > > > > + properties: > > > > + compatible: > > > > + contains: > > > > + const: renesas,r9a07g043u-du > > > > + then: > > > > + properties: > > > > + ports: > > > > + properties: > > > > + port@0: false > > > > + port@1: > > > > + description: DPI > > > > + > > > > + required: > > > > + - port@1 > > > > > > Why do you use port@1 for the DPI output here, and not port@0 ? > > > > Currently the output is based on port number and port = 1 corresponds to DPI. See [1]. > > > > For consistency, I documented bindings for RZ/G2L family DU's similar to RZ/G2{H,M,N,E} DU [2]. > > > > So please let me know, are you ok with this? > > I won't insist strongly, but I don't think that using the port number to indicate the output type is > the best idea. In the R-Car DU driver at least, that wouldn't have scaled. We have multiple outputs of > the same type on some SoCs. Furthemore, the same DU hardware channel number (i.e. > the offset of the registers specific to that channel in the DU register > space) is not the same across SoCs for the same output type. I recommend numbering the ports based on > the hardware number of the output (the exact meaning of this is specific to your device, I haven't > checked what it means for RZ/G2L), not on the output type. OK, will update the bindings to use port for RZ/G2UL and Ports for RZ/{G2L, V2L} as it has multiple DU outputs.