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: bridge: lt8713sx: Add bindings Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 06:57:55 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260303-lt8713sx-bridge-driver-v5-1-6cc2a855aafa@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260303-lt8713sx-bridge-driver-v5-0-6cc2a855aafa@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260303-lt8713sx-bridge-driver-v5-1-6cc2a855aafa@oss.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review This patch has a `Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski` so the DT binding itsel= f is likely in good shape. A few observations: 1. **Missing `enable-gpios` in the binding**: The driver in patch 2 acquire= s an optional `"enable"` GPIO via `devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "enable", G= PIOD_OUT_HIGH)`, but the binding YAML has no `enable-gpios` property. If th= e hardware can use an enable GPIO, it should be documented in the binding. = If it isn't actually needed, the driver shouldn't be requesting it. 2. **Output port descriptions are vague**: All three output ports (port@1, = port@2, port@3) have nearly identical descriptions: ```yaml port@1: description: DP port for DP output from bridge port@2: description: Additional DP port for DP output from bridge ``` It would be helpful to clarify if these correspond to specific physical = connectors on the chip or are functionally interchangeable, and whether the= y can be HDMI outputs as well (the title says "DP1.4/HDMI2.0"). 3. **No `allOf` with `i2c-controller.yaml`**: Minor =E2=80=94 some bindings= for I2C devices include an explicit `$ref` to `i2c-controller.yaml` or the= `unevaluatedProperties: false` pattern, though this isn't strictly require= d with `additionalProperties: false`. --- --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer