Hi Jacek, On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:54:11AM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On 03/21/2015 11:49 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >Hi Jacek, > > > >On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:03:22PM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > >>+Optional properties of the LED child node: > >>+- label : see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt > > > >I'm still not comfortable using the label field as-is as the entity name in > >the later patches, there's one important problem: it is not guaranteed to be > >unique in the system. > > I don't use it as-is in my patches. For max77603-led the i2c adapter id > and client address is added to it, and for aat1290 there is '_n' suffix > added. Nonetheless I didn't notice that the patch [1] was already > merged. It checks if a LED class device with given name isn't already > registered and adds a '_n" suffix if there was any. If it was exported > I could use it in the leds-aat1290 driver and avoid depending on the > static variable. > > Whereas for I2C devices the problem doesn't exist (it is guaranteed that > no more than one I2C client with an address can be present on the > same bus), for devices driven through GPIOs we haven't stable unique > identifier. > > I thought that we agreed on #v4l about adding numerical postfixes > in case of such devices. > > >Do you think this could be added to > >Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt, with perhaps enforcing it > >in the LED framework? Bryan, what do you think? > > The patch [1] seems to address the issue. Replied to that, you're cc'd. For this patch: Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
