On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 6:19 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Rob, > > Am Dienstag, 22. September 2020, 17:42:58 CEST schrieb Rob Herring: > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 07:31:45 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > > The example was adapted slightly to make use of the 'function' and > > > 'color' properties. License discussed with the original author. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <post@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > v4 -> v5: > > > * updated based on feedback by Rob Herring > > > * removed Acked-by > > > > > > v3 -> v4: > > > * added Cc to original author of the binding > > > > > > v2 -> v3: > > > * changed license identifier to recommended one > > > * added Acked-by > > > > > > v2: > > > * added this patch to series (Suggested-by: Jacek Anaszewski) > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 82 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml > > > > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: > > > > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/iqs > > 62x.example.dt.yaml: pwmleds: 'panel' does not match any of the regexes: > > '^led(-[0-9a-f]+)?$', 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' From schema: > > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/l > > eds-pwm.yaml > > I somehow expected errors on those checks, because I got actually two > different recommendations from you: > > In feedback on v4 of this patch (series) you recommended '^led(-[0-9a-f]+)?$' > for the (pwm) led node name, which I used in v5. Or just allow any node name > with ".*" like in gpio-keys.yaml … > > I just checked all in-tree dts files using "pwm-leds" and each also defines > the "label" property, so renaming those nodes should not alter the paths in > sysfs, if I understood everything correctly. So I see two options now: > > 1) Go with the stricter check and fix all failing dts files and examples. > > 2) Just use the very loose check. Either one is fine. Given label is present and there's not a ton of cases, then I'd probably go with 1. > If 1), which patch would go first, renaming nodes in dts and examples or > converting bindings to yaml enabling the stricter check? There's currently no requirement on dts files being warning free. So the schema can come first and any dts fixes later. Rob
