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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMuHMdWYrS=YT7F7erM-e6xhDME4judx-T7rdFGi7CpW1_iqkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210316150033.15987-1-cnsztl@gmail.com> <CAMuHMdU+agaOdf4hQhn5JQDHCbuWm3dETJu01baxfDAY=nikow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210316193839.GA28184@duo.ucw.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20210316193839.GA28184@duo.ucw.cz>
From:   Tianling Shen <cnsztl@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:38:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOP2_TjFtBqBP8wOY-wxSd89yYuYF4bwqWCP4c6FXNMNH=2t-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] rockchip: rk3399: Add support for FriendlyARM
 NanoPi R4S
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>,
        Johan Jonker <jbx6244@gmail.com>,
        David Bauer <mail@david-bauer.net>,
        Jensen Huang <jensenhuang@friendlyarm.com>,
        Marty Jones <mj8263788@gmail.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Pavel,

On 2021-03-17 03:38, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> On Tue 2021-03-16 16:34:50, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Tianling,
> >
> > CC Jacek, Pavel
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 PM Tianling Shen <cnsztl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2021-03-16 02:23 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > Personally, I'm not so fond of the <foo>-%u node names, and prefer
> > > > <foo>-<function>.  With the former, it's way too easy to have a silent
> > > > override in your .dts(i) stack.
> > > > Cfr. commit 45f5d5a9e34d3fe4 ("arm64: dts: renesas: r8a77995: draak:
> > > > Fix backlight regulator name")
> > >
> > > How about using `lan-led`, `sys-led` and `wan-led` here?
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml says "led-%u"
> > is the preferred form, but that anything containing "led" as a substring
> > is accepted.  So I'd go for "led-lan" etc.
> >
> > BTW, you can validate your DTB against the leds-gpio DT bindings
> > by running:
> >
> >     make dtbs_check
> > DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >
> > Background info for CCed parties:
> >
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210316150033.15987-1-cnsztl@gmail.com/
>
> I don't care much either way, lan-0 is okay as is lan-led.
>
> but...
>
> +                       label = "nanopi-r4s:green:lan";
> +                       label = "nanopi-r4s:red:sys";
> +                       label = "nanopi-r4s:green:wan";
>
>
> It would be good to have common labels, that means LED_FUNCTION_LAN,
> LED_FUNCTION_WAN, and figuring out something better than "sys",
> possibly LED_FUNCTION_FAULT?

LED_FUNCTION_POWER for "sys" would be fine, I think.

However, Documentation/leds/leds-class.rst says the form of naming is
"devicename:color:function",
and according to the given examples, as well as other dts(i), would it
be okay to use `green:lan`
etc. as the lable?

>
> Thanks,
>                                                                 Pavel
>
> --
> http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

Thanks,
Tianling.