Re: [PATCH v10 6/9] dt-bindings: clock: nxp,imx95-blk-ctl: Add ldb child node

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: missing LDB constraints for nxp,imx95-lvds-csr variant
--

commit ef256d56e7840a3d6a825d4ac33adad77eacd513
Author: Laurentiu Palcu <laurentiu.palcu@oss.nxp.com>

dt-bindings: clock: nxp,imx95-blk-ctl: Add ldb child node

Since the BLK CTL registers, like the LVDS CSR, can be used to control the
LVDS Display Bridge controllers, add 'ldb' child node to handle
these use cases.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml
> index fbbf1b3f17904..97fe816a38f94 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -63,7 +67,9 @@ allOf:
>        properties:
>          compatible:
>            contains:
> -            const: nxp,imx95-camera-csr
> +            enum:
> +              - nxp,imx94-lvds-csr
> +              - nxp,imx95-camera-csr
>      then:
>        required:
>          - '#address-cells'

[Severity: Medium]
Could this introduce a regression where device tree validation incorrectly fails
for i.MX95 devices that define an ldb child node under the LVDS CSR?

This change restricts #address-cells and #size-cells to these two strings,
forcing them to false for nxp,imx95-lvds-csr. Should nxp,imx95-lvds-csr also
be included in this enum?

[ ... ]
> @@ -72,8 +78,24 @@ allOf:
>        properties:
>          '#address-cells': false
>          '#size-cells': false
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          not:
> +            contains:
> +              const: nxp,imx95-camera-csr
> +    then:
>        patternProperties:
>          '^formatter@[0-9a-f]+$': false
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          not:
> +            contains:
> +              const: nxp,imx94-lvds-csr
> +    then:
> +      patternProperties:
> +        '^ldb@[0-9a-f]+$': false

[Severity: Medium]
Does this introduce a regression by preventing nxp,imx95-lvds-csr from
declaring an ldb child node?

This explicitly forbids the ldb child node for anything other than
nxp,imx94-lvds-csr, thereby silently prohibiting it for nxp,imx95-lvds-csr.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261006-dcif-upstreaming-v10-0-bcfb28de0aae@oss.nxp.com?part=6