From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm/panel-edp: Add BOE NT140WHM-N4T, BOE NT140WHM-T05, BOE NV140FHM-N40 Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 13:22:15 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260506170607.10813-3-terry_hsiao@compal.corp-partner.google.com> References: <20260506170607.10813-1-terry_hsiao@compal.corp-partner.google.com> <20260506170607.10813-3-terry_hsiao@compal.corp-partner.google.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 **Minor concern.** Three BOE panel entries added: | Product ID | Panel Name | Delay | |---|---|---| | 0x090d | NT140WHM-N4T | delay_200_500_e50 | | 0x0b85 | NT140WHM-T05 | delay_200_500_e50 | | 0x0c6f | NV140FHM-N40 | delay_200_500_e50 | - All product IDs verified against provided EDIDs. - Sort order is correct for all three insertions. **Note on delay choice:** All three use `delay_200_500_e50`, while some com= parable BOE panels use longer enable delays =E2=80=94 e.g., NT140WHM-N49 (0= x08b2) uses `delay_200_500_e200`, NT140FHM-N47 (0x0b56) uses `delay_200_500= _e80`. The NV140FHM-N40 in particular is a FHD panel similar to NT140FHM-N4= 7. Using `e50` isn't wrong (other BOE panels like 0x09c3 and 0x0964 also us= e it), but the submitter should confirm these shorter enable delays were va= lidated on actual hardware. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer