Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:23:59 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5 10/15] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-controller:
 Document support for LEDs node
Message-ID: <38534a25-4bb3-4371-b80b-abfc259de781@lunn.ch>
References: <20230319191814.22067-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230319191814.22067-11-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230321211953.GA1544549-robh@kernel.org>
 <641a35b8.1c0a0220.25419.2b4d@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <641a35b8.1c0a0220.25419.2b4d@mx.google.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > Are specific ethernet controllers allowed to add their own properties in 
> > led nodes? If so, this doesn't work. As-is, this allows any other 
> > properties. You need 'unevaluatedProperties: false' here to prevent 
> > that. But then no one can add properties. If you want to support that, 
> > then you need this to be a separate schema that devices can optionally 
> > include if they don't extend the properties, and then devices that 
> > extend the binding would essentially have the above with:
> > 
> > $ref: /schemas/leds/common.yaml#
> > unevaluatedProperties: false
> > properties:
> >   a-custom-device-prop: ...
> > 
> > 
> > If you wanted to define both common ethernet LED properties and 
> > device specific properties, then you'd need to replace leds/common.yaml 
> > above  with the ethernet one.
> > 
> > This is all the same reasons the DSA/switch stuff and graph bindings are 
> > structured the way they are.
> > 
> 
> Hi Rob, thanks for the review/questions.
> 
> The idea of all of this is to keep leds node as standard as possible.
> It was asked to add unevaluatedProperties: False but I didn't understood
> it was needed also for the led nodes.
> 
> leds/common.yaml have additionalProperties set to true but I guess that
> is not OK for the final schema and we need something more specific.
> 
> Looking at the common.yaml schema reg binding is missing so an
> additional schema is needed.
> 
> Reg is needed for ethernet LEDs and PHY but I think we should also permit
> to skip that if the device actually have just one LED. (if this wouldn't
> complicate the implementation. Maybe some hints from Andrew about this
> decision?)

I would make reg mandatory.

We should not encourage additional properties, but i also think we
cannot block it.

The problem we have is that there is absolutely no standardisation
here. Vendors are free to do whatever they want, and they do. So i
would not be too surprised if some vendor properties are needed
eventually.

	Andrew