Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: - [High] Removing 'port' from the global required list without conditional replacements allows all panels to omit their display controller connection. - [Medium] The schema fails to apply the dual-LVDS binding for the new dual-channel panel, breaking validation for pixel-order properties. --
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] dt-bindings: display: panel-lvds: Add boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible --- commit dda569bad0ff68efade6e9633f374c324001833a Author: Vishnu Saini <[email protected]> dt-bindings: display: panel-lvds: Add boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible This commit adds the BOE DV215FHM-R01 21.5" dual-channel LVDS panel to the panel-lvds binding. It also removes the global port requirement to allow dual-channel panels to use the ports topology with separate port@0 and port@1 nodes. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml > index b89f86bc06837..584818b2df6ea 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml [ ... ] > @@ -72,6 +74,12 @@ properties: > > - const: panel-lvds > > + ports: > + $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports > + description: > + For dual-channel LVDS panels, use 'ports' with port@0 for odd pixels > + and port@1 for even pixels instead of the single 'port' property. [Severity: Medium] Since the boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible requires dual-LVDS properties like dual-lvds-odd-pixels and dual-lvds-even-pixels in its ports, shouldn't this schema conditionally reference /schemas/display/lvds-dual-ports.yaml? Without referencing the dual-LVDS schema, won't these properties fail validation as unrecognized properties, or fail to have their mandatory presence enforced when someone instantiates this dual-channel panel? > + > unevaluatedProperties: false > > required: > @@ -80,6 +88,4 @@ required: > - width-mm > - height-mm > - panel-timing > - - port > - > ... [Severity: High] Does removing port from the global required list without providing conditional replacements allow all existing single-channel LVDS panels to silently pass validation even if they omit their display controller connection? Would it be safer to enforce this requirement using an anyOf block such as anyOf: [{required: [port]}, {required: [ports]}], or to use conditional if-then blocks to ensure validation constraints for prior generations are not globally relaxed? -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
