From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: drm/msm/dsi: add DSI version >= comparison helper
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 03:12:29 +1000
Message-ID: <review-patch4-20260321-dsi-rgb101010-support-v4-4-eb28ecebbfe8@pm.me>
In-Reply-To: <20260321-dsi-rgb101010-support-v4-4-eb28ecebbfe8@pm.me>
References: <20260321-dsi-rgb101010-support-v4-0-eb28ecebbfe8@pm.me> <20260321-dsi-rgb101010-support-v4-4-eb28ecebbfe8@pm.me>
X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0

Patch Review

```c
static bool msm_dsi_host_version_geq(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host,
				      u32 major, u32 minor)
{
	return msm_host->cfg_hnd->major > major ||
	       (msm_host->cfg_hnd->major == major &&
	       msm_host->cfg_hnd->minor >= minor);
}
```

The logic is correct for a >= comparison across (major, minor) pairs. The existing open-coded check in `msm_dsi_host_is_wide_bus_enabled` is correctly refactored to use it:

```c
return msm_host->dsc &&
	msm_dsi_host_version_geq(msm_host, MSM_DSI_VER_MAJOR_6G,
				 MSM_DSI_6G_VER_MINOR_V2_5_0);
```

Note that the old code had an explicit `major == MSM_DSI_VER_MAJOR_6G` check (i.e., it would **not** match for non-6G majors even if the "minor" was numerically higher). The new helper changes the semantics slightly: if `major > MSM_DSI_VER_MAJOR_6G` (i.e., > 0x03), it would now return true, whereas before it would return false. This is likely fine since there is no major version > 0x03 currently, and the new behavior is arguably more correct for forward-compatibility.

**No issues.**

---

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer