On 02/01/2017 10:26 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 02/01/2017 04:56 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 01/31/2017 10:34 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 01/31/2017 05:11 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
Thanks a lot Jacek for this explanation (and sorry but I needed a bit of
time to
think about this). I can finally see your point, I think we're on the
same page
now.
I think that for all this time I was thinking from the pure DT
perspective. If
you ignore fact that Linux has multiple LED trigger drivers, then
"led-triggers"
may not sound that bad.
After reading your description however I can see this property can be
misleading
as Linux people may think "drivers" when seeing "triggers".
I still think this is a useful property and I hope we can still find a
way to
name it in a sane way: to be nice from DT PoV and march Linux LEDs
subsystem.
I also see the need for this property.
I think we should still work on some generic property (without linux,
prefix) as
this seems to be something generic, not really specific to Linux
implementation.
Specifying relation between LED and devices is something than AFAICS
can be
reused by other systems as well.
So my suggestion is to try some new name & leave linux,default-trigger
to allow
specifying one single trigger driver as required by current Linux
implementation.
What do you think about this?
There are few suggestions to came to my mind:
"trigger-sources"
"trigger-devices"
"led-trigger-devices"
"led-related-devices"
"led-event-devices"
trigger-devices would work in this specific use case,
where we can give phandles to usb ports. Nonetheless, we
have also other kernel based events serving as trigger
sources - e.g. timer.
In this case I'd go for trigger-sources, but we'd need
to have some generic way of defining the source like timer.
I'd leave timer for later discussion but I'm glad you brought this problem.
Maybe we could discuss this on another example that is more supported like
GPIOs?
We know this property allows specifying USB ports and we want it to support
mixing various sources. So a very simple sample case seems to be using
it for
specifying GPIO as trigger source.
Is this possible to mix various entries in a list assigned to single
property?
Let's say:
trigger-sources =
<&ohci_port1>,
<&ehci_port1>,
<&gpio 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
According to my knowledge all elements in the list are elements
of one array, no matter if they are comma separated or space separated
in "<>" brackets. DT maintainer would have to confirm that though.
This matches my knowledge as well.
Is this possible to support this? If so, which function I can use to detect
what is pointed by a phandle?
I'm not that familiar with DT and I'm not sure how to handle this.
I wonder if this is correct way to go. Maybe we should think of
creating entirely new trigger mechanism that would allow for having
multiple active triggers at a time.
I'm OK with reworking Linux's triggers if it need be. I think we should agree
on binding(s) first though.
Of course trigger-sources would be still useful for defining
a list of devices of the same type like in case of usbport trigger.
Nonetheless, I have a problem with this property being a part of
LED class device DT bindings. Triggers are not tightly coupled with
LED class devices, but trigger-sources being a list of usb ports
would be applicable only to usbport trigger. What if there was
another combo trigger e.g. for reporting activity on mulitple GPIOs?
That was exactly my point with above trigger-sources example including 2 USB
ports & GPIO.
Should we have separate list of trigger sources per any possible
existing trigger type? Aren't we going to far from pure hardware
description the Device Tree was initially predestined to?
That would simplify things, but it gets us back to *multiple* properties like
led-usb-triggers (or led-usb-trigger-sources)
led-pci-triggers (or led-pci-trigger-sources)
led-gpio-triggers (or led-gpio-trigger-sources)
etc.
Last time Rob said he's not going to accept something like this, see:
On 23 January 2017 at 17:45, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not going to accept something specific to USB. So the choice is make
> the existing property work for USB or design something more flexible and
> generic.
So I think the main question right now is if this is possible to support mixed
entries in a list like that
trigger-sources =
<&ohci_port1>,
<&ehci_port1>,
<&gpio 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
I posted as example.
I was also trying to find help on IRC #devicetree channel but didn't get any
response:
[09:15] <rmilecki> hi, i've a question about mixing various entries in a single list
[09:16] <rmilecki> is this possible to have different /syntax/ in every list element
[09:16] <rmilecki> and have driver detect what does it reference?
[09:16] <rmilecki> i'll post an example
[09:17] <rmilecki> trigger-sources = <&ohci_port1>, <&ehci_port1>, <&gpio 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
[09:18] <rmilecki> this question is related to my work in [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: document new led-triggers property
[09:18] <rmilecki> beware, there is a long discussion in that thread
Rob: do you still follow this thread? We'd like to use single property as you
suggested, but is it possible to work with something like trigger-sources
example posted above?
