On 2025-12-22 09:36:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/12/2025 09:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> + - |
> >> + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> >> +
> >> + dsi {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> + panel@0 {
> >> + compatible = "samsung,sofef03-m-amb609vp01";
> >> + reg = <0>;
> >> +
> >> + reset-gpios = <&tlmm 75 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >> +
> >> + vci-supply = <&vreg_l11c_3p0>;
> >> + vddio-supply = <&vreg_l14a_1p8>;
> >> +
> >> + port {
> >
> > Not tested :/
>
> Ah no, this one is correct. It's the other patch with similar compatible
> which was not tested.
I think you mean:
.output/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.example.dtb:
panel@0 (samsung,ana6707-amb650yl01): 'ports' does not match any of the
regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$'
from schema $id:
http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.yaml
.output/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.example.dtb:
panel@0 (samsung,ana6707-amb650yl01): 'port' is a required property
from schema $id:
http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/samsung,ana6707.yaml
Which looks to be fixed by including panel-common-dual.yaml and changing `port`
to `ports` in the properties and required table? At least the errors are gone,
just asking if that is acceptable.
Then:
.output/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,sofef01-m.example.dtb:
panel@0 (samsung,sofef01-m-amb609tc01): 'vci-supply' does not match any of the
regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$'
from schema $id:
http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/samsung,sofef01-m.yaml
Which I do not immediately understand how to resolve. I'd believe there's a
problem with the conditional inclusion of this vci-supply property based on the
compatible name, but do not see where the problem lies as other dt-bindings seem
to write it this way as well. Can you point this out to me?
Alternatively I'll drop the example with vci-supply, but this'll return when
said panel is committed to DTS.
Lastly checkpatch complains that the "lgd" prefix isn't a valid vendor. Should
I add "LG Display" to the list or rename it to "lg,"?
> Actually two others were not tested. We are not a testing service - it
> is your task.
That is not very kind; sometimes things might slip through and it's nice if CI
catches them at a last resort.
- Marijn
