Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: display: panel-lvds: Add boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Removing 'port' from the global required list without conditional replacements allows all panels to omit their display controller connection.
- [Medium] The schema fails to apply the dual-LVDS binding for the new dual-channel panel, breaking validation for pixel-order properties.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] dt-bindings: display: panel-lvds: Add boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible ---
commit dda569bad0ff68efade6e9633f374c324001833a
Author: Vishnu Saini <vishnu.saini@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: display: panel-lvds: Add boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible

This commit adds the BOE DV215FHM-R01 21.5" dual-channel LVDS panel
to the panel-lvds binding. It also removes the global port requirement
to allow dual-channel panels to use the ports topology with separate
port@0 and port@1 nodes.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml
> index b89f86bc06837..584818b2df6ea 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml

[ ... ]

> @@ -72,6 +74,12 @@ properties:
>  
>        - const: panel-lvds
>  
> +  ports:
> +    $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports
> +    description:
> +      For dual-channel LVDS panels, use 'ports' with port@0 for odd pixels
> +      and port@1 for even pixels instead of the single 'port' property.

[Severity: Medium]
Since the boe,dv215fhm-r01 compatible requires dual-LVDS properties like
dual-lvds-odd-pixels and dual-lvds-even-pixels in its ports, shouldn't this
schema conditionally reference /schemas/display/lvds-dual-ports.yaml?

Without referencing the dual-LVDS schema, won't these properties fail
validation as unrecognized properties, or fail to have their mandatory
presence enforced when someone instantiates this dual-channel panel?

> +
>  unevaluatedProperties: false
>  
>  required:
> @@ -80,6 +88,4 @@ required:
>    - width-mm
>    - height-mm
>    - panel-timing
> -  - port
> -
>  ...

[Severity: High]
Does removing port from the global required list without providing
conditional replacements allow all existing single-channel LVDS panels to
silently pass validation even if they omit their display controller
connection?

Would it be safer to enforce this requirement using an anyOf block such as
anyOf: [{required: [port]}, {required: [ports]}], or to use conditional
if-then blocks to ensure validation constraints for prior generations are
not globally relaxed?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260719-b4-lvds-panel-doc-v1-1-6a18c213c2f6@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1