RE: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: spi: renesas,rzv2h-rspi: Document RZ/G3L SoC

[Biju Das]

Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,

Thanks for the feedback.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 05 April 2026 09:58
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: spi: renesas,rzv2h-rspi: Document RZ/G3L SoC
> 
> On 02/04/2026 16:10, Biju Das wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So even after my objections here:
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9d08ddda-403e-458d-95e4-4e76915df85d@ke
> >>>> rn
> >>>> el.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> this was not fixed and Renesas did not provide actual cross-patch review.
> >>>
> >>> That patch is not correct. See below.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is still probably wrong as pointed out by other patches by Renesas.
> >>>> Also, you cannot have flexible names.
> >>>
> >>> You can have "rx", "tx" in any order and {rx, tx} should be unique
> >>> dma specifier
> >>
> >> No. You cannot. I just told you so. Please read writing-bindings for arguments.
> >
> > <snippet from writing-bindings >
> > - DO define properties in terms of constraints. How many entries? What are
> >   possible values? What is the order? All these constraints represent the ABI
> >   as well.
> > </snippet>
> >
> > Is that the reason you're saying we cannot have flexible names for DMAs?
> 
> Yes
> 
> >
> > Are you expecting the RZ/G3L DMA entries to be like below? Please let me know.
> >
> > This is not flexible — the user always needs to specify RX first, followed by TX.
> >
> > +  dmas:
> > +    maxItems: 2
> > +
> > +  dma-names:
> > +    items:
> > +      - const: rx
> > +      - const: tx
> 
> 
> Yes

Ok, will send next version making it not flexible for single DMAC.

I accidently sent v2, so the next version will be v3.

Cheers,
Biju