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/mipi-dsi: Add flag to support dual-panel configurations Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 20:00:02 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260521-sm8650-7-1-bonded-dsi-v4-2-a4dd5e0850f1@linaro.org> References: <20260521-sm8650-7-1-bonded-dsi-v4-0-a4dd5e0850f1@linaro.org> <20260521-sm8650-7-1-bonded-dsi-v4-2-a4dd5e0850f1@linaro.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 **Concept**: Adds a `bool dual_panel` to `struct mipi_dsi_device` so a pane= l driver can signal the DSI host that it's part of a dual-panel setup. **Issues:** 1. **Generic name, MSM-specific semantics**: The field is added to the core= DRM MIPI DSI header (`include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h`), making it part of the = cross-driver API. However, only the MSM DSI host consumes it. The commit me= ssage describes very MSM-specific behavior (bonded-DSI, shared clock from D= SI0 PHY). Other DSI host drivers won't understand this flag. If the intent = is for this to be a generic DRM concept, the semantics need proper document= ation and potentially discussion on dri-devel about what "dual_panel" means= generically vs. bonded DSI. 2. **No documentation of expected behavior**: The field lacks a kerneldoc d= escription of what a host driver should *do* when it sees this flag set. Th= e commit message talks about halving horizontal timings, but that's buried = in the cover letter and patch 3, not in the header. 3. **Name ambiguity**: `dual_panel` could mean many things =E2=80=94 two pa= nels on different CRTCs, a dual-scan panel, etc. Something like `bonded_pan= el` or `is_bonded_dsi_panel` would be clearer about the intended semantics. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer