Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: leds: commonize leds property

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:39AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 9/8/25 9:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 8-Sep-25 09:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 9/8/25 1:18 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:
> >>> A number of existing schemas use 'leds' property to provide
> >>> phandle-array of LED(s) to the consumer. Additionally, with the
> >>> upcoming privacy-led support in device-tree, v4l2 subnode could be a
> >>> LED consumer, meaning that all camera sensors should support 'leds'
> >>> and 'led-names' property via common 'video-interface-devices.yaml'.
> >>>
> >>> To avoid dublication, commonize 'leds' property from existing schemas
> >>> to newly introduced 'led-consumer.yaml'.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aleksandrs Vinarskis <alex@vinarskis.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>  
> >>> +  leds:
> >>> +    minItems: 1
> >>> +    maxItems: 1
> >>
> >> My brain compiler suggests this will throw a warning (minItems should
> >> be redundant in this case)
> >>> +
> >>> +  led-names:
> >>> +    enum:
> >>> +      - privacy-led
> >>
> >> Nit: "privacy" makes more sense without the suffix, as we inherently
> >> know this is supposed to be an LED
> > 
> > Note "privacy-led" as name is already used on the x86/ACPI side and
> > the code consuming this will be shared.
> > 
> > With that said if there is a strong preference for going with just
> > "privacy" the x86 side can be adjusted since the provider-info is
> > generated through a LED lookup table on the x86/ACPI side. So we can
> > just modify both the lookup table generation as well as the already
> > existing led_get(dev, "privacy-led") call to use just "privacy"
> > without problems.
> 
> In that case, it may be cleaner to just go with what we have today
> (unless the dt maintainers have stronger opinions)

Well, I do, but I guess it's fine. Please don't add the suffix on the 
rest and add a comment for why it's there.

Rob