Re: [net-next PATCH v5 10/15] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-controller: Document support for LEDs node

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > Are specific ethernet controllers allowed to add their own properties in 
> > led nodes? If so, this doesn't work. As-is, this allows any other 
> > properties. You need 'unevaluatedProperties: false' here to prevent 
> > that. But then no one can add properties. If you want to support that, 
> > then you need this to be a separate schema that devices can optionally 
> > include if they don't extend the properties, and then devices that 
> > extend the binding would essentially have the above with:
> > 
> > $ref: /schemas/leds/common.yaml#
> > unevaluatedProperties: false
> > properties:
> >   a-custom-device-prop: ...
> > 
> > 
> > If you wanted to define both common ethernet LED properties and 
> > device specific properties, then you'd need to replace leds/common.yaml 
> > above  with the ethernet one.
> > 
> > This is all the same reasons the DSA/switch stuff and graph bindings are 
> > structured the way they are.
> > 
> 
> Hi Rob, thanks for the review/questions.
> 
> The idea of all of this is to keep leds node as standard as possible.
> It was asked to add unevaluatedProperties: False but I didn't understood
> it was needed also for the led nodes.
> 
> leds/common.yaml have additionalProperties set to true but I guess that
> is not OK for the final schema and we need something more specific.
> 
> Looking at the common.yaml schema reg binding is missing so an
> additional schema is needed.
> 
> Reg is needed for ethernet LEDs and PHY but I think we should also permit
> to skip that if the device actually have just one LED. (if this wouldn't
> complicate the implementation. Maybe some hints from Andrew about this
> decision?)

I would make reg mandatory.

We should not encourage additional properties, but i also think we
cannot block it.

The problem we have is that there is absolutely no standardisation
here. Vendors are free to do whatever they want, and they do. So i
would not be too surprised if some vendor properties are needed
eventually.

	Andrew



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux