Hi Laurent, Thank you for the review.
On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 8:50 PM Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Prabhakar, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 06:00:09PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote: > > From: Lad Prabhakar <[email protected]> > > > > 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. Cheers, Prabhakar
