RE: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: display: renesas,rzg2l-du: Add RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H support

[Biju Das]

Hi Laurent/Prabhakar,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 06 May 2026 20:58
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: display: renesas,rzg2l-du: Add RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H support
> 
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 8:50 PM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prabhakar,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 06:00:09PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote:
> > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Document the Display Unit (DU) support for the RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H SoCs.
> > >
> > > The DU block on RZ/T2H is functionally equivalent to the RZ/G2UL DU
> > > and supports the DPI interface, but includes SoC-specific register differences.
> > > Add a dedicated compatible string to represent this variant.
> > >
> > > As the DU implementation on RZ/N2H matches RZ/T2H, describe it using
> > > an RZ/N2H specific compatible string with the RZ/T2H compatible as fallback.
> > >
> > > Unlike other DU variants which use a multi-port model, the RZ/T2H
> > > and RZ/N2H DU has a single output and is modelled using a single
> > > port node with one endpoint. Add a port property to support this and
> > > update the allOf constraints accordingly.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be simpler to always have a "ports" node, even for
> > variants with a single port ?
> >
> I agree that, from a binding perspective, always having a "ports" node keeps things simpler and
> consistent. Biju suggested this change based on earlier feedback for the RZ/G3E series.

From G3E feedback, I got the impression that going forward all future SoCs needs to have
single port and multiple endpoints. That is the reason for suggesting port for new SoCs.

Cheers,
Biju