On 25/02/2026 13:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 25/02/2026 13:19, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:

quoted

With the introduction of the RK3588 SoC, and RK3576 afterwards, the
'link' and 'cache' register blocks have been provided for the video
decoder unit in addition to the existing 'function' one, which now shows
up in between them (from address-based ordering point of view).

However, the binding does not properly describe this hardware layout, as
the new blocks are listed after the old one.  Therefore it breaks the
convention expecting the unit address to indicate the first register
range.

Since the binding changes have been already released and a fix would
bring up an ABI break, mark the current 'reg-names' listing as
deprecated and introduce an alternative 'link,function,cache' one.

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

Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml      | 19 ++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml
index 809fda45b3bd..3f6072e8baa5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip,vdec.yaml

@@ -28,16 +28,21 @@ 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

This is confusing, I think I missed that in previous patch because it
did not leave that part or I misread the diff hunk - why do you allow
one entry?

If the first entry is function, then all others MUST built on top, thus
this:

quoted

+          - const: link
+          - const: function
+          - const: cache

is not correct.

No, you don't change the orders. So again, if you have such binding,
then you just fix the unit address leaving the binding as is.

I just now checked v2 - it had this first "function" left, so I missed
that part. I would give different review at v2, so you would not waste
time. Apologies for that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof