On 24/02/2026 14:14, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:

Hi,

Le mardi 24 février 2026 à 08:17 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit :

quoted

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:

quoted

Update 'reg-names' property to allow providing the register blocks in
the expected address-based order for RK3576 & RK3588 video decoder and,

What? The register blocks SHOULD NOT be provided in address-based order.
There was never such coding style, never ever we gave such hint and if
you found Qcom discussions you would see me and Rob objecting to it.

Would be nice to make a suggestion to how to fix this warning differently.

rk3576.dtsi:1282.30-1304.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /soc/video-codec@27b00000: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "27b00100"

I provided the suggestion in the commit mentioning the issue. Nothing
here suggests any warning, so why would I suggest some steps?

quoted

quoted

consequently, fix some DTC warnings.

Additionally, drop the 'reg' description items as the order is not fixed
anymore, while the information they offer is not very relevant anyway.

Fixes: c6ffb7e1fb90 ("media: dt-bindings: rockchip: Document RK3588 Video Decoder bindings")
Fixes: a5c4a6526476 ("media: dt-bindings: rockchip: Add RK3576 Video Decoder bindings")

No, nothing to be fixed here. Describe the bug, because missing order
to address-based is for sure not a bug.

The warning should be part of this this commit message, since the cover letter
is not going into git.

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml | 13 ++++++-------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml
index 809fda45b3bd..2d3164a2882b 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml

@@ -28,16 +28,15 @@ properties:

 
   reg:
     minItems: 1
-    items:
-      - description: The function configuration registers base
-      - description: The link table configuration registers base
-      - description: The cache configuration registers base
+    maxItems: 3
 
   reg-names:
-    items:
+    oneOf:
       - const: function
-      - const: link
-      - const: cache
+      - items:
+          - const: link
+          - const: function
+          - const: cache

No, ABI break without point.

Its not released yet, otherwise both order would need to be allowed.

Nothing in commit msg explains that and we expressed such expectation
multiple times. Otherwise you get above comment.

Best regards,
Krzysztof