On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:26:37AM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:

quoted

quoted

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