From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D61C433FE for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233302AbhKWWXI (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:23:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59550 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229992AbhKWWXG (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:23:06 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5363DC061574; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id y26so1681895lfa.11; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:19:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:to:cc:references :from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0dNze5BuC1E1VNp8jJzao1B85iEO1b+8dS4X+NzFIi0=; b=H0B75Z/eflYh1I5sL+6y+DFuJtxi/nLyh7cqhQjnOLvgIXXaCjmScqetS5a69H7BQN QIIQt278tX6rUQ9cISm+OuWFiqUeJNLEazBxFgsMmvBMfK8ATyK9n6fdESTVX9QLN0E8 /CMBeK3f4GNe0VZLtVzLfrvTe3KctHFsEIUsFvuKDKyWCmOqhV/QMdYXnGQXEQA3B3Ak sZ4QSFARDjtUIWJFwJdhxCuep2b8vxeoqj8qC6CglsOsGWJIRRaLHjXHB1tLVM0Uhz7u XT8X/1ZwNeb256LAvDD7smQGXJBVF+Ra+vL9rDu2J3dTi+HhsTTk9Tx4wbZvLpCj/raK wIKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0dNze5BuC1E1VNp8jJzao1B85iEO1b+8dS4X+NzFIi0=; b=Zg84v355ZvE9Obv/9039Yd2qVJgNHBKOK5juuAnLbkGJuyTNd8m7yxZqdjE522DAup doIA0OQ29FKdOeIx5PWx/H9M3UGQ+M/QYCQ5o42NjMcWGQvTtbyKCqzJMZFb0/eDvixO Z91f2MeJLTloVnLHJcPc86F2siz65nu9/DGkJdk62+k0ZBOBK0RigALmYiK43diJy/8t AEm7bNp8lvdX6H17ejrO00iRQbQP0OIVOheHCtjCc/etdHDj9fcBPIXHZDtKcPFW4eC1 NmNZGFiQIHNIXSvDFIgVC5PnRaRk0VmUYWWxss1ieRDaQ3SRuzCn8q9geznFZq9NJnjT YyLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303d5f81YOwjb2tNpSxTyiLVeAT8EAqu+KivqmqX4hW1ZHfB0Nn kfOtzbJOd7Fr7uo5dDadTcQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydB2pVBVLZ4UviWeSt2y47haLdzS15XEYOImL+dDBbWY2vtAQSN82TzBEKYk7lLcyqrYymQA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:ad5:: with SMTP id n21mr8691655lfu.460.1637705995591; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:19:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.26.149] (ip-194-187-74-233.konfederacka.maverick.com.pl. [194.187.74.233]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j19sm230962lji.94.2021.11.23.14.19.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:19:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:19:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/95.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: add Broadcom's BCM63xxx controller To: Florian Fainelli , Pavel Machek , Rob Herring Cc: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= References: <20211115091107.11737-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <495a94ce-984e-f5c5-f5a2-74dc1b61e345@gmail.com> <5113880f-d37d-0835-c140-c3749048c519@gmail.com> <0795ecb9-f638-bb95-1e97-4c10800eb37c@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= In-Reply-To: <0795ecb9-f638-bb95-1e97-4c10800eb37c@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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 >>>> >>>> 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!