Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] dt-bindings: display/msm: Document Nord MDSS - sashiko-bot

From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Nabige Aala" <nabige.aala@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: robh@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	neil.armstrong@linaro.org, vkoul@kernel.org,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	olteanv@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] dt-bindings: display/msm: Document Nord MDSS
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 13:45:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-168208@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261012-nord-drv-dt-v2-3-a2ab9af954d2@oss.qualcomm.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: missing #interrupt-cells in qcom,nord-mdss required list
- [Medium] dt-bindings: display/msm: missing schema for qcom,nord-dpu bypasses validation
--

commit a8ede601ef532b71d1dd3db5e26ddef317404570
Author: Mahadevan P <mahadevan.p@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: display/msm: Document Nord MDSS

Nord has a new MDSS 12.1 revision with DPU 1499A and two independent,
DP-only display interface controllers (no DSI), which no existing
schema describes. Add a dedicated qcom,nord-mdss binding to document.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,nord-mdss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,nord-mdss.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..abd80dae4e7f5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,nord-mdss.yaml

[ ... ]

> +patternProperties:
> +  "^display-controller@[0-9a-f]+$":
> +    type: object
> +    additionalProperties: true
> +    properties:
> +      compatible:
> +        const: qcom,nord-dpu

[Severity: Medium]
Since additionalProperties is set to true and there is no $ref to a common
DPU schema, won't this allow any arbitrary properties, typos, or invalid
data types in the qcom,nord-dpu child node to silently pass validation?

Is there an external schema for qcom,nord-dpu, or should this node
reference an existing DPU schema to ensure proper dt_binding_check
enforcement?

[ ... ]

> +required:
> +  - compatible

[Severity: Medium]
Since the hardware acts as an interrupt controller (as demonstrated in the
example block with interrupt-controller and #interrupt-cells = <1>), does
#interrupt-cells need to be added to this required list?

According to the subsystem guidelines, when a variant adds provider
capabilities like an interrupt controller, the corresponding properties
must appear in the required list with appropriate constraints to prevent
incomplete device tree nodes from bypassing schema validation.

> +
> +unevaluatedProperties: false

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261012-nord-drv-dt-v2-0-a2ab9af954d2@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy