On Thu, 08 May 2025, Wolfram Sang wrote:

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 01:39:14PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

Hi Wolfram,

CC leds

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 11:33, Wolfram Sang
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
---

Changes since v2:
* using function, color, function-enumerator properties now

Honestly, this is better than using node names? With V2, the LEDs were
named as in the schematics, now they are called:

lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 May 12 12:10 green:programming-0 -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/green:programming-0
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 May 12 12:10 green:programming-1 -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/green:programming-1
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 May 12 12:10 green:programming-2 -> ../../devices/platform/leds/leds/green:programming-2
...

Which gets even more confusing if we might later add LEDs not on this
board, but on the expansion board. 'green:programming-8' sits where?

I really wonder, but if this is the official way now...

Good point!  So I'm inclined to take v2...

Let's raise this with the LED people. I don't want to fight Pavel when
v2 hits the CiP tree ;-)

So, if there is no other opinion here, can we remove function, color,
function-enumerator and just use the node names which match the
schematics? Basically apply V2?

I didn't author the semantics nor the rules surrounding them, but I am
obliged to enforce them.  Therefore "LED people" say, please stick to
convention as stated in the present documentation:

https://docs.kernel.org/leds/leds-class.html#led-device-naming

Please note that a "debug" (LED_FUNCTION_DEBUG) option already exists if
that is more appropriate to your use-case.

Let's also bring Jacek into the conversion, since I know that he did a
bunch of work around this topic.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]