From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: bridge: This patch adds new content to the lontium,lt9611.yaml binding file Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:19:49 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <192f1948-bb9a-4831-a1cd-5ef500cfb413@kernel.org> References: <192f1948-bb9a-4831-a1cd-5ef500cfb413@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Subject line**: The commit subject should be a short imperative descripti= on, not "This patch adds...". Something like: `dt-bindings: display/bridge:= lontium,lt9611: Add LT9611C/EX/UXD compatibles`. **Fullwidth punctuation characters**: ``` - The LT9611 and LT9611UXC are bridge devices which convert DSI to HDMI + The LT9611=E3=80=81LT9611UXC=E3=80=81LT9611C=E3=80=81LT9611EX and LT9611= UXD=20 ``` The `=E3=80=81` characters are fullwidth ideographic commas (U+3001). These= must be replaced with regular ASCII commas. Also there is trailing whitesp= ace on that line. **Binding completeness**: Adding three new `compatible` strings to an exist= ing binding implicitly says these chips have exactly the same DT properties= as LT9611/LT9611UXC. Is that actually true? Do the new chips share the sam= e register layout, same supply names, same port structure? If not, `allOf`/= `if`/`then` blocks may be needed (e.g. for differing supply requirements). = Since the driver is entirely separate and the chips appear to have a fundam= entally different register/MCU interface, it may be more appropriate to cre= ate a separate binding file. **Missing `#sound-dai-cells` consideration**: The existing binding has `#so= und-dai-cells` with const: 1. The new driver uses HDMI audio helpers rather= than the sound-dai approach, so this may not be relevant, but it should be= explicitly called out. --- --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer