Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Add reversed lvds lanes support

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Missing error check causes genuinely malformed 'data-lanes' property to be silently ignored.
--

--- Patch [3]: [PATCH v6 3/3] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Add reversed lvds lanes support ---
commit b4313ac661e9afa3be192ed6d9fd4791e5f7c33a
Author: Wojciech Dubowik <Wojciech.Dubowik@mt.com>

drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Add reversed lvds lanes support

This commit adds support for parsing an optional "data-lanes" property to
configure the ti-sn65dsi83 chip when LVDS output lanes have been reversed, 
allowing it to program the corresponding hardware registers accordingly.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> index 1869ebe13366c..e1b6e22bed359 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -845,6 +863,19 @@ static int sn65dsi83_parse_lvds_endpoint(struct sn65dsi83 *ctx, int channel)
>  	else
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	ret_data = of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", data_lanes,
> +			ARRAY_SIZE(data_lanes));
> +	if (!ret_data) {
> +		if (memcmp(data_lanes,
> +				supported_data_lane_mapping[LANE_MAPPING_REVERSE],
> +				sizeof(data_lanes)) == 0)
> +			ctx->lvds_reverse_lanes_conf[channel] = true;
> +		else if (memcmp(data_lanes,
> +			   supported_data_lane_mapping[LANE_MAPPING_NORMAL],
> +			   sizeof(data_lanes)) != 0)
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "invalid data lanes mapping\n");
> +	}
> +
>  	ret_data = of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "ti,lvds-vod-swing-data-microvolt",
>  					lvds_vod_swing_data, ARRAY_SIZE(lvds_vod_swing_data));

[Severity: Medium]
If the "data-lanes" property exists but is malformed (for example, containing an
incorrect number of elements and returning -EOVERFLOW), ret_data will be
non-zero and the error is ignored. The ret_data variable is then immediately
overwritten by the next property read.

Should we check for error codes other than -EINVAL (which indicates the optional
property is absent) and return an error, rather than silently ignoring malformed
device tree properties?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260721071253.1098652-1-wojciech.dubowik@mt.com?part=3