Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] dt-bindings: display: panel: Describe Samsung SOFEF03-M DDIC

[Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>]

On 2025-12-22 09:36:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/12/2025 09:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> +  - |
> >> +    #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> >> +
> >> +    dsi {
> >> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> >> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> >> +        panel@0 {
> >> +            compatible = "samsung,sofef03-m-amb609vp01";
> >> +            reg = <0>;
> >> +
> >> +            reset-gpios = <&tlmm 75 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >> +
> >> +            vci-supply = <&vreg_l11c_3p0>;
> >> +            vddio-supply = <&vreg_l14a_1p8>;
> >> +
> >> +            port {
> > 
> > Not tested :/
> 
> Ah no, this one is correct. It's the other patch with similar compatible
> which was not tested.

I think you mean:

	.output/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.example.dtb: panel@0 (samsung,ana6707-amb650yl01): 'ports' does not match any of the regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$'
		from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.yaml
	.output/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.example.dtb: panel@0 (samsung,ana6707-amb650yl01): 'port' is a required property
		from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.yaml

Which looks to be fixed by including panel-common-dual.yaml and changing `port`
to `ports` in the properties and required table?  At least the errors are gone,
just asking if that is acceptable.

Then:

	.output/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,sofef01-m.example.dtb: panel@0 (samsung,sofef01-m-amb609tc01): 'vci-supply' does not match any of the regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$'
		from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/samsung,sofef01-m.yaml

Which I do not immediately understand how to resolve.  I'd believe there's a
problem with the conditional inclusion of this vci-supply property based on the
compatible name, but do not see where the problem lies as other dt-bindings seem
to write it this way as well.  Can you point this out to me?

Alternatively I'll drop the example with vci-supply, but this'll return when
said panel is committed to DTS.

Lastly checkpatch complains that the "lgd" prefix isn't a valid vendor.  Should
I add "LG Display" to the list or rename it to "lg,"?

> Actually two others were not tested. We are not a testing service - it
> is your task.

That is not very kind; sometimes things might slip through and it's nice if CI
catches them at a last resort.

- Marijn