Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:59:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:   ultracoolguy@tutanota.com
To:     Marek Behun <kabel@blackhole.sk>
Cc:     Pavel <pavel@ucw.cz>, Dmurphy <dmurphy@ti.com>,
        Linux Leds <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <MIxm3uX--3-2@tutanota.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201006093356.6d25b280@blackhole.sk>
References: <20201005141334.36d9441a@blackhole.sk> <MIt2NiS--3-2@tutanota.com> <3c5fce56-8604-a7d5-1017-8a075f67061e@ti.com> <MItBqjy--3-2@tutanota.com> <966c3f39-1310-dd60-6f33-0d9464ed2ff1@ti.com> <MItOR9Z--3-2@tutanota.com> <20201005164808.slrtmsvmw4pvwppm@falbala.internal.home.lespocky.de> <MItjEho--3-2@tutanota.com> <20201005173227.GA6431@duo.ucw.cz> <20201006093356.6d25b280@blackhole.sk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

While I do agree with you that having the child nodes be led strings make more sense, would it be possible to have, for example, three strings controlled by the same label?

Oct 6, 2020, 07:33 by kabel@blackhole.sk:

> By the way I just realized that the DT binding in this driver seems
> incorrect to me.
>
> The controller logically supports 3 LED strings, each having
> configurable control bank.
>
> But the DT binding supports 2 DT nodes, one for each control bank
> (identified by the `reg` property) and then `led-sources` says which
> string should be controlled by given bank.
>
> But taking in mind that DT should describe how devices are connected to
> each other, I think the child nodes in the binding should instead
> describe the 3 supported LED strings...
>
> Marek
>