Hi Laurent/Prabhakar, > -----Original Message----- > From: Lad, Prabhakar <[email protected]> > 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 > <[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.
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
