Re: [PATCH 4/6] arm64: dts: imx8-ss-dma: Add lcdif support for i.MX8QXP and i.MX8DXL

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Missing mandatory 'port' node in adma_lcdif device tree node
--

--- Patch [4]: [PATCH 4/6] arm64: dts: imx8-ss-dma: Add lcdif support for i.MX8QXP and i.MX8DXL ---
commit d68882cf2077caac27f3b49fce6a1c236c79be4a
Author: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>

arm64: dts: imx8-ss-dma: Add lcdif support for i.MX8QXP and i.MX8DXL

This commit adds lcdif device tree nodes for the i.MX8QXP and i.MX8DXL
platforms.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-ss-dma.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-ss-dma.dtsi
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-ss-dma.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-ss-dma.dtsi

[ ... ]

> @@ -149,6 +149,24 @@ lpuart3: serial@5a090000 {
>  		status = "disabled";
>  	};
>  
> +	adma_lcdif: lcdif@5a180000 {
> +		compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-lcdif", "fsl,imx6sx-lcdif";
> +		reg = <0x5a180000 0x10000>;
> +		clocks = <&lcd_clk_lpcg IMX_LPCG_CLK_0>,
> +			 <&lcd_clk_lpcg IMX_LPCG_CLK_4>,
> +			 <&clk IMX_SC_R_LCD_0 IMX_SC_PM_CLK_MISC0>;
> +		clock-names = "pix", "axi", "disp_axi";
> +		assigned-clocks = <&clk IMX_SC_R_LCD_0 IMX_SC_PM_CLK_PER>,
> +				  <&clk IMX_SC_R_LCD_0 IMX_SC_PM_CLK_MISC0>,
> +				  <&clk IMX_SC_R_ELCDIF_PLL IMX_SC_PM_CLK_PLL>;
> +		assigned-clock-parents = <&clk IMX_SC_R_ELCDIF_PLL IMX_SC_PM_CLK_PLL>,
> +					 <&clk IMX_SC_R_LCD_0 IMX_SC_PM_CLK_BYPASS>;
> +		assigned-clock-rates = <0>, <24000000>, <804000000>;
> +		interrupts = <GIC_SPI 62 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +		power-domains = <&pd IMX_SC_R_LCD_0>;
> +		status = "disabled";
> +	};

[Severity: Low]
Will this trigger a dtbs_check warning due to a missing port node?

Looking at the fsl,lcdif.yaml binding schema, it appears a port node is
strictly required for any compatible other than fsl,imx28-lcdif. Since
dtbs_check validates all nodes against the schema even when their status is
disabled, will omitting the port node here introduce a new validation
warning indicating that port is a required property?

Could this node include an empty port node, or should the schema be updated
to make the port property optional for disabled nodes?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260714-dxl_lcdif-v1-0-6761a8a6592b@nxp.com?part=4