Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: display: msm: qcm2290: Add Shikra MDSS

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Unresolvable DT schema contradiction for Shikra DSI compatible strings.
- [Medium] Missing schema conditional constraints for Shikra DSI controller.
--

commit a65ad60044f8d36574550891df31ee37428077f9
Author: Nabige Aala <nabige.aala@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: display: msm: qcm2290: Add Shikra MDSS

Shikra SoC uses the same MDSS/DPU/DSI hardware as QCM2290 (DPU 6.5),
sharing the same register layout, DSI controller and 14nm DSI PHY.
Add qcom,shikra-mdss to the qcm2290-mdss binding compatible enum
rather than introducing a separate binding file.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml
> index dbc0613e427ed..a2f3e91104af3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ properties:
>                - qcom,sdm660-dsi-ctrl
>                - qcom,sdm670-dsi-ctrl
>                - qcom,sdm845-dsi-ctrl
> +              - qcom,shikra-dsi-ctrl

[Severity: Medium]
Should qcom,shikra-dsi-ctrl also be added to the allOf:if conditional
block that enforces clock constraints?

The QCM2290 and Shikra DSI controllers require 6 clocks and
assigned-clocks. While qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl was already missing from
the clock validation block, omitting the newly added qcom,shikra-dsi-ctrl
allows incomplete device tree nodes for Shikra to silently pass validation
without providing the mandatory clocks.

>                - qcom,sm6115-dsi-ctrl
>                - qcom,sm6125-dsi-ctrl

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,qcm2290-mdss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,qcm2290-mdss.yaml
> index bb09ecd1a5b4f..7184b09a87749 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,qcm2290-mdss.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,qcm2290-mdss.yaml

[ ... ]

> @@ -60,9 +79,14 @@ patternProperties:
>  
>      properties:
>        compatible:
> -        items:
> -          - const: qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl
> -          - const: qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl
> +        oneOf:
> +          - items:
> +              - const: qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl
> +              - const: qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl
> +          - items:
> +              - const: qcom,shikra-dsi-ctrl
> +              - const: qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl
> +              - const: qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl

[Severity: Medium]
Does this create an unresolvable contradiction for Shikra device tree nodes
during schema validation?

These changes to qcom,qcm2290-mdss.yaml enforce a 3-item compatible string
array for Shikra. However, the earlier change adding qcom,shikra-dsi-ctrl to
dsi-controller-main.yaml places it in an enum block that strictly enforces
a 2-item array.

Could this mismatch prevent valid Shikra nodes from passing validation,
since any configuration valid for one schema will be rejected by the other?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260604-shikra-display-v2-0-b3c1b2b67edc@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1