Jean-François Nguyen

These examples look very appealing ! How would per-field reset values be defined for aggregate signals ? (also: `reset_less`, `attrs`) Dealing with those is frustrating with the current Record API....

> `reset_less` and `attrs` are not possible to implement per-field since there is not a distinct `Signal` per-field in this design. More generally, if it's not _data in storage_ (and...

> Why not add the constraint to the appropriate signal depending on the direction? That is actually the workaround I used when I encountered this. The issue is that on...

Rebased to current main branch.

Update to track [changes](https://github.com/amaranth-lang/rfcs/pull/30#issuecomment-1893644341) to the RFC.

Rebased on current main. Updated `Signature.annotations(self, obj)` to `Signature.annotations(self, obj, /)`; This prevents `obj` from being set as a kwarg, which allows subclasses to rename it (e.g. to `interface`).

> Looks good to me. The lib.meta module still needs reference documentation, and lib.wiring module's reference documentation needs to be expanded, before the feature is considered fully done. Agreed.

Updated with documentation and changelog entry. The CI link check will fail until the `ComponentMetadata` schema is published to https://amaranth-lang.org/schema/amaranth/0.5/component.json.

Changed to draft status, which will be removed once the UART in amaranth-stdio is ~~rewritten from scratch~~ updated to reach quality standards of upstream Amaranth.

This RFC was discussed during the [2024-03-22](https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/amaranth-lang/2024-03-22#1711126597-1711129812;) SoC meeting: - (@zyp, @whitequark) instead of `Control` and `Divisor` registers, provide `Config` and `PhyConfig` registers whose shapes are user-provided and used in...