Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-7610-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <6583705d.050a0220.6e903.083d@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:53:14 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"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>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Document new LEDs
 polarity property
References: <20231215212244.1658-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20231215212244.1658-2-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20231220152209.GA229412-robh@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231220152209.GA229412-robh@kernel.org>

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 09:22:09AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Document new LEDs polarity property to define what mode the LED needs to
> > be put to turn it on.
> > 
> > Currently supported modes are:
> > 
> > - active-low
> > - active-high
> > - active-low-tristate
> > - active-high-tristate
> 
> Why is having a polarity unique to LEDs on ethernet PHYs? It's not. We 
> already have 'active-low' established on several LED bindings. Please 
> move the definition to leds/common.yaml and extend it. I would simply 
> add an 'inactive-tristate' boolean property (if there's an actual user). 
>

Should I also drop the active-low from the current schema that have it?

Also we have led-active-low. (should we support both?)

On the marvell10g series we are discussing of using tristate or not. We
notice tristate might be confusing, would it be better to use
inactive-high-impedance ?

> I do worry this continues to evolve until we've re-created the pinctrl 
> binding...
> 

-- 
	Ansuel