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

[Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org>]

Hi,

On 9-Sep-25 12:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.

Dropping the "-led" suffix on the ACPI side really is no big deal,
so if we don't want the suffix it is probably best to also drop
it for "privacy-led" rather then setting a bad example to be
copy and pasted.

Regards,

Hans