From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.175]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F31DE8FF for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:07:19 +1000 (EST) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 24so5572170wfg.15 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:07:15 -0600 From: Grant Likely To: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: implement OpenFirmare GPIO LED driver Message-ID: <20080717150715.GD31932@secretlab.ca> References: <20080714164114.GA18784@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20080717110730.GA24775@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080717110730.GA24775@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> Sender: Grant Likely Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Richard Purdie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 03:07:30PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > What would be the parent node of this, btw? > > This is tricky question. Personally I place them inside the gpio > controller node that is responsible for the LED. But I think placing the > led nodes at top level would be also fine (maybe with "leds { }" node as > a parent for all board's LEDs. What would you suggest for a "best > practice"? I like this idea (a 'leds' parent node). They aren't really children of the GPIO node or any other device/bus in the system. Putting them under a dedicated 'leds' node would make them easy to find and would have the added advantage of making it easier to have a single driver instance manage the whole lot. g.