On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:12 PM Johan Jonker <jbx6244@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >> So for fixing up the LED node names, we'd probably want the following:
> >>
> >> diy_led: led-0
> >> yellow_led: led-1
> >> work_led: led-2
>
> Change proposal for led nodes to comply with preexisting dts.
> Does this work?
>
> diy_led: led_0: led-0
> yellow_led: led_1: led-1
> work_led: led_2: led-2
>
>
> blue: led_0: led-0
>
> A check does not give any warnings.
>
> make -k ARCH=arm dtbs_check
> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
IMO the led_N labels are kind of useless... they don't convey the
information needed to identify the device.
A reader seeing
&led_0 {
linux,default_triggger = "activity";
};
in some device tree (overlay) has no idea what this snippet is supposed
to do. The person has to go back to the base dts / dtsi file to figure
that out.
But seriously, you should start a separate thread to discuss this issue.
ChenYu
> >
> > That doesn't look pretty either.
> > Would like to hear the maintainers view on how to handle other cases
> > without 'led' like for example 'blue' for mk808.
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
