Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: Clearly mark label property as deprecated

On Wed Aug 20, 2025 at 10:14 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:

quoted

On Fri Aug 15, 2025 at 1:00 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 15/08/2025 12:47, Diederik de Haas wrote:

quoted

The text description already mentioned the label property was
deprecated, but using the 'deprecated' property makes is clearer and
more explicit.

Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Please first read previous discussions:

[I reversed the order of the links so the oldest is first]

quoted

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221122111124.6828-1-cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com/ (local)

Rob: "They ['function' and 'label'] serve 2 different purposes."

quoted

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240509110545.49889-1-linux@fw-web.de/ (local)

Krzysztof: "I don't think there was conclusion to make it deprecated on
last attempt"

I agree.
What I don't understand: Why wasn't the text updated to correct the
incorrect statement about deprecation (that's how I interpret it now)?
Or some other conclusion being made and that that will be reflected in
the text and/or a deprecated property.

Otherwise the confusion remains and then it's just a matter of time
before a 4th person comes along proposing the same patch.
And possibly even more harmful: people use it incorrectly.

Whatever change you want to do here, I expect to address one way or
another these previous discussions. If the code is confusing, refine the
description. But not in a way which ignored previous feedbacks.

I'm not going to make a change.

I thought I would be making (more) explicit what the binding says.
Apparently I read/interpreted it incorrectly. What I described above is
how I currently interpret the *confusion* text/discussion. Is that
correct? I have no idea. That I'm at least the 3rd person proposing this
change indicates I'm not the only one who is confused.

IMO it's up to a/the maintainer to make a decision and that should then
be reflected in the binding, which should fix any confusion.

I hadn't looked at the code yet, but *I*IUC the code should follow the
binding, not the other way around. That's how I have interpreted
(mostly your) comments related to various binding patches ever since I
started actively following upstream(ing) work. Which (again) may be an
incorrect interpretation.

Regards,
  Diederik