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: panel-simple-dsi: add nt37700f compatible Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 11:42:23 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260310002606.16413-3-mailingradian@gmail.com> References: <20260310002606.16413-1-mailingradian@gmail.com> <20260310002606.16413-3-mailingradian@gmail.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 **Status: Questionable =E2=80=94 potential conflict with patch 3.** This adds `novatek,nt37700f` to `panel-simple-dsi.yaml`: ``` + # Novatek NT37700F 1080x2160 AMOLED panel + - novatek,nt37700f ``` However, patch 3 adds a **dedicated panel driver** (`panel-novatek-nt37700f= .c`), not a `panel-simple` entry. The `panel-simple-dsi.yaml` binding descr= ibes panels that only need a single `power-supply`, a backlight, and an ena= ble GPIO =E2=80=94 with no init sequences. The NT37700F driver has an exten= sive DSI init sequence (`nt37700f_tianma_on()`), page-switching commands, a= nd custom backlight handling, which makes it clearly *not* a "simple" panel. Adding the compatible to `panel-simple-dsi.yaml` while also having a dedica= ted driver could cause DT validation confusion. Typically, panels with dedi= cated drivers get their own binding YAML file (or are documented in the dri= ver's own binding). Unless this is intentionally done so the panel can fall= back to `panel-simple` without init commands (e.g., if the bootloader alre= ady initializes it), this seems like a mistake. The binding should probably= be a standalone `novatek,nt37700f.yaml` instead. That said, I notice this already has an ack from Krzysztof, so perhaps this= is intentional for this use case, but it's worth clarifying. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer