Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

["Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>]

On 23.03.2021 23:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:25 PM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> wrote:
>>
>> On 16.03.2021 23:31, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:00:25AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
>>>> was most likely just an overlook.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>>> Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
>>>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
>>>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
>>>> 1. led-power-white
>>>> 2. led-power-blue
>>>
>>> No, node names are supposed to be generic and reflect the class of
>>> device.
>>
>> There was some extra discussion on this patch that has ended up with a question about numbering nodes.
>>
>> Current binding assumes that nodes should be numbered with independent suffix numbers like:
>> led-0 { };
>> led-1 { };
>> led-2 { };
>>
>> Do you think this could / should be improved somehow?
> 
> No, we have other ways for meaningful names (label, color, function, etc.).
> 
>> One option I was thinking about was using:
>> led@0 { };
>> led@5 { };
>> where numbers ("0", "5") should match GPIO numbers.
>>
>> Is that a valid solution and does it improve things to make it worth it?
> 
> What if you have <gpioa 1> and <gpiob 1>?
> 
> The cells in a consumer for a provider are opaque to the consumer.

Thanks a lot for helping me understand that, it make sense ofc.