Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) 
to consider:
- [Medium] The new compatible string 'qcom,nord-dp-phy' is omitted from the 
'allOf' conditional block that enforces the 3-clock constraint, causing it to 
fall back to the incorrect 2-clock constraint.
--

commit 325c210ca82765c8807b8dc10d9ca6c4f986b06b
Author: Mahadevan P <[email protected]>

dt-bindings: phy: qcom,edp-phy: Document Nord eDP PHY

This commit adds the compatible string for the eDP PHY found on the
Qualcomm Nord SoC.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,edp-phy.yaml 
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,edp-phy.yaml
> index 0bf8bf4f66acf..91d7a5c8e19af 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,edp-phy.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,edp-phy.yaml
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
>      oneOf:
>        - enum:
>            - qcom,glymur-dp-phy
> +          - qcom,nord-dp-phy

[Severity: Medium]
Will this compatible string incorrectly fall back to the 2-clock constraint?

Looking at the allOf block later in this file, recent hardware generations
requiring 3 clocks are explicitly enumerated:

allOf:
  - if:
      properties:
        compatible:
          enum:
            - qcom,glymur-dp-phy
            - qcom,sa8775p-edp-phy
            - qcom,x1e80100-dp-phy
    then:
      properties:
        clocks:
          minItems: 3
          maxItems: 3
    else:
      properties:
        clocks:
          minItems: 2
          maxItems: 2

Since the Nord PHY utilizes a 38.4 MHz CXO reference clock, should
qcom,nord-dp-phy be added to the enum in the allOf conditional block?

Without it, device trees providing the necessary 3 clocks (aux, cfg_ahb, ref)
might fail schema validation, while incomplete ones providing only 2 clocks
could silently pass via the else fallback.

>            - qcom,sa8775p-edp-phy
>            - qcom,sc7280-edp-phy
>            - qcom,sc8180x-edp-phy

-- 
Sashiko AI review ยท 
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1

Reply via email to