| Message ID | 20200930234637.7573-4-post@lespocky.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | leds: pwm: Make automatic labels work | expand |
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 01:51, Alexander Dahl <post@lespocky.de> wrote: > > The node names for devices using the pwm-leds driver follow a certain > naming scheme (now). What warning? Please post them here and in every DTS patch. Your schema does not enforce pwmleds node naming (the main node, not children), or at least I could not see it. You change multiple files in your patchset so are you sure that all these are justified by warnings pointed out by schema? Best regards, Krzysztof
Hello Krzysztof, Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020, 11:21:10 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 01:51, Alexander Dahl <post@lespocky.de> wrote: > > The node names for devices using the pwm-leds driver follow a certain > > naming scheme (now). > > What warning? Please post them here and in every DTS patch. ack > Your schema does not enforce pwmleds node naming (the main node, not > children), or at least I could not see it. You change multiple files > in your patchset so are you sure that all these are justified by > warnings pointed out by schema? The rename was suggested by Rob [1], and I think you're right, those names are not (yet) enforced by schema? So at least the commit message is misleading for now. I'll have to see if I rather reword or update the schema again. Greets Alex [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20200922155747.GA2734659@bogus/
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:07, Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote: > > Hello Krzysztof, > > Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020, 11:21:10 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 01:51, Alexander Dahl <post@lespocky.de> wrote: > > > The node names for devices using the pwm-leds driver follow a certain > > > naming scheme (now). > > > > What warning? Please post them here and in every DTS patch. > > ack > > > Your schema does not enforce pwmleds node naming (the main node, not > > children), or at least I could not see it. You change multiple files > > in your patchset so are you sure that all these are justified by > > warnings pointed out by schema? > > The rename was suggested by Rob [1], and I think you're right, those names are > not (yet) enforced by schema? So at least the commit message is misleading > for now. I'll have to see if I rather reword or update the schema again. If schema does not enforce it, then maybe just mention that you align the children names with schema and pwmleds node to device tree specification guidelines (node name should be generic, reflecting function of the device). However in such case changing only pwmleds node name in DTS (without changing children) would not be justified, IMHO. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/iqs62x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/iqs62x.yaml index 541b06d80e73..92dc48a8dfa7 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/iqs62x.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/iqs62x.yaml @@ -90,10 +90,11 @@ examples: }; }; - pwmleds { + led-controller { compatible = "pwm-leds"; - panel { + led-1 { + label = "panel"; pwms = <&iqs620a_pwm 0 1000000>; max-brightness = <255>; };
The node names for devices using the pwm-leds driver follow a certain naming scheme (now). Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <post@lespocky.de> --- Notes: v6: * added this patch to series Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/iqs62x.yaml | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)