On Wed Aug 20, 2025 at 10:14 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote: >> On Fri Aug 15, 2025 at 1:00 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> > On 15/08/2025 12:47, Diederik de Haas wrote: >> >> The text description already mentioned the label property was >> >> deprecated, but using the 'deprecated' property makes is clearer and >> >> more explicit. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas >> >> --- >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.yaml | 1 + >> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> >> > >> > Please first read previous discussions: >> >> [I reversed the order of the links so the oldest is first] >> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221122111124.6828-1-cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com/ >> >> Rob: "They ['function' and 'label'] serve 2 different purposes." >> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240509110545.49889-1-linux@fw-web.de/ >> >> Krzysztof: "I don't think there was conclusion to make it deprecated on >> last attempt" >> >> I agree. >> What I don't understand: Why wasn't the text updated to correct the >> incorrect statement about deprecation (that's how I interpret it now)? >> Or some other conclusion being made and that that will be reflected in >> the text and/or a deprecated property. >> >> Otherwise the confusion remains and then it's just a matter of time >> before a 4th person comes along proposing the same patch. >> And possibly even more harmful: people use it incorrectly. > > Whatever change you want to do here, I expect to address one way or > another these previous discussions. If the code is confusing, refine the > description. But not in a way which ignored previous feedbacks. I'm not going to make a change. I thought I would be making (more) explicit what the binding says. Apparently I read/interpreted it incorrectly. What I described above is how I currently interpret the *confusion* text/discussion. Is that correct? I have no idea. That I'm at least the 3rd person proposing this change indicates I'm not the only one who is confused. IMO it's up to a/the maintainer to make a decision and that should then be reflected in the binding, which should fix any confusion. I hadn't looked at the code yet, but *I*IUC the code should follow the binding, not the other way around. That's how I have interpreted (mostly your) comments related to various binding patches ever since I started actively following upstream(ing) work. Which (again) may be an incorrect interpretation. Regards, Diederik