Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: display: lcdif: Allow display0 child node for i.MX6UL

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Undocumented Schema Relaxation: The commit message claims to only allow the `display0` child node, but the patch also removes the requirement for the `port` node and allows multiple legacy properties (`display`, `lcd-supply`, `dmas`, `dma-names`) for `fsl,imx6ul-lcdif`. The explanation for these additional relaxations was placed below the `---` separator, meaning it will be lost from the permanent git history when the patch is applied.
--

--- Patch [3]: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: display: lcdif: Allow display0 child node for i.MX6UL ---
commit 0235ccaa0f6772b41fe4b752e56f626d79d4d469
Author: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>

dt-bindings: display: lcdif: Allow display0 child node for i.MX6UL

This commit updates the binding schema to allow the display0 child node
for fsl,imx6ul-lcdif to resolve a CHECK_DTBS warning.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/fsl,lcdif.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/fsl,lcdif.yaml
> index 2dd0411ec6516..2b123ddf06841 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/fsl,lcdif.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/fsl,lcdif.yaml
> @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ allOf:
>              contains:
>                enum:
>                  - fsl,imx28-lcdif
> +                - fsl,imx6ul-lcdif
>      then:
>        properties:
>          dmas: false

[Severity: Medium]
Does this change do more than just allow the display0 child node mentioned
in the commit message?

By adding fsl,imx6ul-lcdif to this exclusion list, it skips the block that
previously disabled legacy properties. This removes the requirement for the
port node and allows multiple legacy properties (display, lcd-supply, dmas,
dma-names).

The explanation for this was placed below the --- separator in the patch:

"sashiko report problem and allow dma/dma-names for i.MX6ul. which should
be fine for this kinds of old platform."

Since text below the separator is discarded when the patch is applied, this
justification will be lost.

Could this explanation be moved into the commit message itself to preserve
the reasoning in the permanent git history?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260718-arm_dts_ldb-v2-0-f5669571aa2b@nxp.com?part=3