Re: [PATCH v9 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] The `allOf` conditional block restricts the `ldb` child node exclusively to `nxp,imx94-lvds-csr`, improperly forbidding it for `nxp,imx95-lvds-csr`.
--

commit 6a3665e114245286584773223a39379615a4d4fc
Author: Laurentiu Palcu <laurentiu.palcu@oss.nxp.com>

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

This commit adds support for the 'ldb' child node to the i.MX95 BLK CTL
bindings. It updates the schema to handle cases where BLK CTL registers
control the LVDS Display Bridge controllers.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nxp,imx95-blk-ctl.yaml

[ ... ]

> @@ -46,6 +57,21 @@ required:
>    - power-domains
>    - clocks
>  
> +allOf:
> +  - if:
> +      not:
> +        properties:
> +          compatible:
> +            contains:
> +              const: nxp,imx94-lvds-csr

[Severity: Medium]
Does this restriction improperly forbid the ldb child node on i.MX95 devices?

The clock driver exposes LDB-related clocks for the i.MX95 variant, so it
seems nxp,imx95-lvds-csr is also an LVDS CSR that controls the LVDS Display
Bridge. By omitting nxp,imx95-lvds-csr from this check, will valid i.MX95
device trees defining the ldb child node fail schema validation?

Should this condition check an enum containing both nxp,imx94-lvds-csr and
nxp,imx95-lvds-csr instead?

> +    then:
> +      patternProperties:
> +        "^ldb@[0-9a-f]+$": false
> +    else:
> +      required:
> +        - '#address-cells'
> +        - '#size-cells'

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260612-dcif-upstreaming-v9-0-8d0ff89aa3c5@oss.nxp.com?part=6