On 19.12.23 10:54, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 19.12.23 10:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/12/2023 10:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 19.12.23 09:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 19/12/2023 09:22, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> + gpios = <&wkup_gpio0 53 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; >>>>>> >>>>>> Ditto >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is adjusting the existing LED nodes in k3-am65-iot2050-common.dtsi, >>>>> not introducing new ones. We can add the color properties in a separate >>>> >>>> >>>> Then why aren't you overriding by phandle/label? >>>> >>> >>> We could do that as well if we added labels first (they don't exist so >>> far). Not seeing any difference, though. >> >> Confusion? Your code suggests new node, thus you got review like you got. >> >>> >>>>> patch, but the node names are now part of the kernel ABI. Changing them >>>>> would break existing userland. >>>> >>>> You mean label. Why node names became the ABI? Which interface exposes them? >>> >>> root@iot2050-debian:~# ls -l /sys/class/leds/ >>> total 0 >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 mmc0:: -> ../../devices/platform/bus@100000/4fa0000.mmc/leds/mmc0:: >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 mmc1:: -> ../../devices/platform/bus@100000/4f80000.mmc/leds/mmc1:: >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 14 21:12 status-led-green -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/status-led-green >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 status-led-red -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/status-led-red >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 user-led1-green -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/user-led1-green >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 user-led1-red -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/user-led1-red >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 user-led2-green -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/user-led2-green >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 19 08:55 user-led2-red -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/user-led2-red >> >> I replied too fast previous and did not include answer here: >> >> You have label for that... Somehow all these nodes are half-baked, >> without all the expected properties and now you call node name as ABI. >> The node name is not the ABI. > > Well, existing userspace uses those names, and adding the properties > would break that interface. Now, does Linux do that? > Obviously, we could deviate from the existing naming scheme only for the new variant, keeping it for the other 5, but that will be "fun" to maintain. Jan -- Siemens AG, Technology Linux Expert Center
