Re: pending patches

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1541 bytes --]

Hi!

> > > I have two pending patches:
> > > https://patches.linaro.org/patch/432324/ from 2021-05-07
> > 
> > I don't understand this one. Are these normal single-color LEDs, or is it some
> > kind of weird red/orange/amber/green combination exposed as single LED?
> 
> This is not single-color LED. LED is controlled by programmable device, color is
> set by writing relevant bit mask combination to the related LED register.

Not a single-color LED yet using single-color API, and now you are
introducing additional hacks on the top of it. Sorry, no.

> > > https://patches.linaro.org/patch/403538/ from 2021-03-16, which has been
> > re-sent.
> > 
> > In this case, I don't think i2c bus number is suitable way to identify add-on
> > card. Having some way of identifying add-on cards makes sense (as we'll
> > probably have other vendors having "fault" or "activity"
> > light on their cards), but those boards will not neccessarily have i2c on them.
> 
> Line card always has I2C connection, LED color is controlled through a programmable
> device, which is always I2C device. So, this is I2C and bus number identifies topology.

I see it works for your hardware. I don't believe it works for other
vendors having "activity" LED on their card, and I'd like to see
consistent naming across vendors.

> Pavel,
> I have those patches pending very long time. Could you, please, help to get them
> accepted?

Not really, sorry.

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]