Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231123-mv88e6xxx-leds-v1-1-3c379b3d23fb@linaro.org> <c8c821f8-e170-44b3-a3f9-207cf7cb70e2@lunn.ch>
In-Reply-To: <c8c821f8-e170-44b3-a3f9-207cf7cb70e2@lunn.ch>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 26 Nov 2023 00:46:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdY+T8Rqg_irkLNvAC+o_QfwO2N+eB9X-y24t34_9Rg3ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Support LED control
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     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>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 5:13=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:

> What i would really like to see happen is that the DSA core handles
> the registration of the LEDs, similar to how phylib does. The DT
> binding should be identical for all DSA devices, so there is no need
> for each driver to do its own parsing.
>
> There are some WIP patches at
>
> https://github.com/lunn/linux.git leds-offload-support-reduced-auto-netde=
v
>
> which implement this. Feel free to make use of them.

Oh it's quite a lot of patches, I really cannot drive that because there ar=
e
so many things about them that I don't understand the thinking behind...
But I like what I see!

While I defined the bits a bit differently, some of it looks similar enough=
.

> > +/* Entries are listed in selector order */
> > +static const struct mv88e6xxx_led_hwconfig mv88e6xxx_led_hwconfigs[] =
=3D {
>
> You need to be careful with naming. These are probably specific to the
> 6352. Different switches probably have different capabilities. So it
> would be good to have the names reflect the switch family they are
> valid for.

OK I'll try to name them like such.

> When we come to add support for other switch families, i wounder how
> tables like this scale. Is there some things which can be shared, if
> we break the table up? I need to check the data sheets.

We will see I guess. It falls back to the whole question of whether
supporting all variants in a single module is even scaling. So far
it does I guess? One day the MV88E6xxx may need to be broken
into submodules.

Yours,
Linus Walleij