Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: add Broadcom's BCM63xxx controller

["Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>]

On 23.11.2021 23:17, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 11/22/21 2:00 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 22.11.2021 22:51, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> On 11/15/21 1:11 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> Broadcom used 2 LEDs hardware blocks for their BCM63xx SoCs:
>>>> 1. Older one (BCM6318, BCM6328, BCM6362, BCM63268, BCM6838)
>>>> 2. Newer one (BCM6848, BCM6858, BCM63138, BCM63148, BCM63381, BCM68360)
>>>
>>> Just so the existing pattern/regexps continue to work, I would be naming
>>> this "bcm63xx" to be consistent with the rest of existing code-base.
>>
>> The problem I saw with "bcm63xx" is that it seems to match all SoCs:
>> those with old block and those with new block. So I guess both groups
>> have the same right to use that "bcm63xx" based binding.
>>
>> To avoid favouring old or new block I decided to avoid "bcm63xx".
>>
>> Given above explanation: do you still prefer using "bcm63xx" based
>> binding for the new block? I'm OK with that, I just want to make sure
>> you're aware of that minor issue. Please let me know :)
> 
> Maybe we use leds-bcm63138.c then since this is the first chip in the
> list that featured that block, similar to how leds-bcm6328.c was
> created? Then my second choice would be leds-bcm63xx.c just so the
> existing patterns match, really and because it's easy to visually not be
> able to tell the difference between two x versus three x.

Sounds good to me, thanks for your review!