On 11/22/21 2:00 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 22.11.2021 22:51, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 11/15/21 1:11 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Broadcom used 2 LEDs hardware blocks for their BCM63xx SoCs: >>> 1. Older one (BCM6318, BCM6328, BCM6362, BCM63268, BCM6838) >>> 2. Newer one (BCM6848, BCM6858, BCM63138, BCM63148, BCM63381, BCM68360) >> >> Just so the existing pattern/regexps continue to work, I would be naming >> this "bcm63xx" to be consistent with the rest of existing code-base. > > The problem I saw with "bcm63xx" is that it seems to match all SoCs: > those with old block and those with new block. So I guess both groups > have the same right to use that "bcm63xx" based binding. > > To avoid favouring old or new block I decided to avoid "bcm63xx". > > Given above explanation: do you still prefer using "bcm63xx" based > binding for the new block? I'm OK with that, I just want to make sure > you're aware of that minor issue. Please let me know :) Maybe we use leds-bcm63138.c then since this is the first chip in the list that featured that block, similar to how leds-bcm6328.c was created? Then my second choice would be leds-bcm63xx.c just so the existing patterns match, really and because it's easy to visually not be able to tell the difference between two x versus three x. Thanks -- Florian
