On 28.03.18 23:23, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 03/28/2018 09:48 PM, Oleh Kravchenko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28.03.18 22:21, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>> On 03/28/2018 08:36 AM, Oleh Kravchenko wrote:
>>>> Hello Jacek,
>>>>
>>>> On 27.03.18 23:58, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>>>> +Example
>>>>>> +-------
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +led-controller@0 {
>>>>>> + compatible = "crane,cr0014114";
>>>>>> + reg = <0>;
>>>>>> + spi-max-frequency = <50000>;
>>>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + led@0 {
>>>>>> + reg = <0>;
>>>>>> + label = "cr0:red:coin";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> + led@1 {
>>>>>> + reg = <1>;
>>>>>> + label = "cr0:green:coin";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> + led@2 {
>>>>>> + reg = <2>;
>>>>>> + label = "cr0:blue:coin";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> + led@3 {
>>>>>> + reg = <3>;
>>>>>> + label = "cr1:red:bill";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> + led@4 {
>>>>>> + reg = <4>;
>>>>>> + label = "cr1:green:bill";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> + led@5 {
>>>>>> + reg = <5>;
>>>>>> + label = "cr1:blue:bill";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>
>>>>> Why cr0 and cr1? It should be cr0014114 to stick to the
>>>>> current LED naming pattern <devicename:colour:function>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonetheless, we lately came to the conclusion that devicename
>>>>> segment is redundant in LED class device name, so until we change
>>>>> LED naming convention officially, let's remove devicename segment
>>>>> at least from DT and prepend the label with "cr0014114" in the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please compare how it is approached in [0] (not merged yet).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's just example.
>>>> But anyway our applications works with LEDs by numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Using function names instead numbers will increase code complexity,
>>>> so we use numbers :)
>>>
>>> This is LED class device naming convention in mainline and examples
>>> also must stick to it to keep the things consistent.
>>>
>>> Please switch labels so that they matched the pattern
>>>
>>> label = "color:function";
>>
>>> Why cr0 and cr1? It should be cr0014114 to stick to the
>>> current LED naming pattern <devicename:colour:function>.
>>
>> So how it should be? I'm confused :(
>
> You seem to have overlooked second part of my previous message:
>
> "
> Nonetheless, we lately came to the conclusion that devicename
> segment is redundant in LED class device name, so until we change
> LED naming convention officially, let's remove devicename segment
> at least from DT and prepend the label with "cr0014114" in the driver.
>
> Please compare how it is approached in [0] (not merged yet).
> "
>
> Please note that DT label is not intended to be used as-is
> for LED class device name, but it's been frequently abused so.
>
> Here is the example of how you could modify your code:
>
> DT:
>
> led@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> label = "red:coin";
> };
>
> LED class driver:
>
> #include <uapi/linux/uleds.h>
>
>
> struct cr0014114_led {
> char name[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
> struct cr0014114 *priv;
> struct led_classdev ldev;
> u8 brightness;
> };
>
>
> static int cr0014114_probe_dt(struct cr0014114 *priv)
> {
> ...
> const char *str;
> ...
> device_for_each_child_node(priv->dev, child)
> {
> ...
> if (fwnode_property_read_string(child, "label", &str))
> snprintf(led->name, sizeof(led->name), "cr0014114::"),
> else
> snprintf(led->name, sizeof(led->name), "cr0014114:%s", str),
>
>
> I hope it makes all clear now.
I would like to keep current implementation.
This is acceptable?
--
Best regards,
Oleh Kravchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
