Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] dt-bindings: display: renesas,rzg2l-du: Document RZ/G3E SoC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 03/09/2026 10:17, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Mi, 2026-09-02 at 17:11 +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
>>>>>> +  reset-names:
>>>>>> +    items:
>>>>>> +      - const: resetn
>>>>>> +      - const: resetn1
>>>>>
>>>>> Drop reset-names
>>>>
>>>> For reset-names, I got the the following comment from Philipp in v7 [1].
>>>>
>>>> Dropping reset-names would force the driver back to an index-based
>>>> lookup, which is what that comment explicitly asked me to avoid.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/8382e2b9fd07fb1132c26e228b3899336fc1fdd4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>
>>>> Philipp, Krzysztof, could you agree on which way you'd prefer?
>>>> I'll follow whatever you decide.
>>>
>>> Until we get a variant with a third interrupt (or reset or reg),
>>> which is not related to the number of channels...
>>
>> Right, IMHO names keep the driver flexible enough for such a variant,
>> indices don't.
> 
> I would like to get rid of the reset_control_get_by_index() API
> altogether, if possible. Currently there are only users with index ==
> 0, so this would be the first and so far only valid user. I'd prefer if
> we could keep reset lookup aligned with clock lookup, with via clock-
> names as well.

...and clk uses indexing partially. clk_get() is the corresponding
interface to get the index 0 and is widely used. I agree though there is
no general get-by-index API. If reset won't provide such API, then fine
for the names, but the order of entries is still fixed thus the names
are NOT allowing to change the order.

> 
> That being said, why are the two DU units represented as a single
> device tree node at all? Aren't they two completely separate instances
> of the same IP core?



Best regards,
Krzysztof