Am Freitag, 4. November 2022, 08:17:44 CET schrieb Rasmus Villemoes:
> On 03/11/2022 23.17, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 03:31:17PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> The dp83867 has three LED_X pins that can be used to drive LEDs. They
> >> are by default driven active high, but on some boards the reverse is
> >> needed. Add bindings to allow a board to specify that they should be
> >> active low.
> >
> > Somebody really does need to finish the PHY LEDs via /sys/class/leds.
> > It looks like this would then be a reasonable standard property:
> > active-low, not a vendor property.
> >
> > Please help out with the PHY LEDs patches.
>
> So how do you imagine this to work in DT? Should the dp83867 phy node
> grow a subnode like this?
>
> leds {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> led@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> active-low;
> };
> led@2 {
> reg = <2>;
> active-low;
> };
> };
>
> Since the phy drives the leds automatically based on (by default)
> link/activity, there's not really any need for a separate LED driver nor
> do I see what would be gained by somehow listing the LEDs in
> /sys/class/leds. Please expand.
There have been several tries to support LED support directly per DT, e.g. [1]
& [2]. I assume Andrew is referring to [3].
Best regards,
Alexander
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YFUVcLCzONhPmeh8@xxxxxxx/T/
[2] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg677827.html
[3] https://patches.linaro.org/project/linux-leds/cover/
20220503151633.18760-1-ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx/
