From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: dt-bindings: display: bridge: lt9211: Require data-lanes on DSI input ports Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:19:34 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260407203109.34302-1-marex@nabladev.com> References: <20260407203109.34302-1-marex@nabladev.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Overall Series Review Subject: dt-bindings: display: bridge: lt9211: Require data-lanes on DSI in= put ports Author: Marek Vasut Patches: 2 Reviewed: 2026-04-12T13:19:34.040015 --- This is a single-patch v2 series adding `data-lanes` property definitions t= o the DSI input ports of the Lontium LT9211 devicetree binding. The pattern= follows established conventions used by similar bridge bindings (e.g., `ti= ,sn65dsi83.yaml`). The switch from `$ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/p= ort` to `$ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/$defs/port-base` with `unevaluatedPrope= rties: false` is the correct approach to allow additional endpoint properti= es. The main concern is that the patch adds `required: - data-lanes` to port@0 = and port@1, but these ports can serve multiple protocols (DSI, LVDS, or DPI= ). The `data-lanes` property is only meaningful for DSI, so unconditionally= requiring it would make the binding reject valid LVDS/DPI devicetree descr= iptions. Notably, the ti,sn65dsi83 binding=E2=80=94which appears to be the = template for this change=E2=80=94does **not** mark `data-lanes` as required= , even though its ports are DSI-only. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer