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: panel: Add Chipone ICNA3512 OLED driver bindings Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 10:22:32 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260514-icna35xx-v3-1-c304f04c32c4@gmail.com> References: <20260514-icna35xx-v3-0-c304f04c32c4@gmail.com> <20260514-icna35xx-v3-1-c304f04c32c4@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review This binding is well-structured and follows established conventions. **No major issues.** A few observations: - The `oneOf` structure correctly separates ICNA3512 and ICNA3520 compatibles with their respective board-specific compatibles. This cleanly captures the "same DDIC family, different vendor commands" relationship described in the commit message. - The supply names (`vdd`, `vddio`, `vci`, `disp`, `blvdd`) are all listed as required, which is appropriate since these are dedicated supply pins on the DDIC. - The `port` property is declared but not required, which is fine for DSI panels where the port is implicit from the parent DSI bus node. - Nit: The binding file is named `chipone,icna3512.yaml` while it covers both ICNA3512 and ICNA3520. The cover letter says v3 renamed it from `icna35xx` to `icna3512` to match a compatible. This makes sense per DT binding conventions (name matches the first/primary compatible), but worth noting the title says "ICNA3512 and ICNA3520" while the filename only mentions one. **Looks good.** --- --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer