On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 01:56:15AM +0200, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 11:10:51AM +0000, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:

quoted

Currently supports passing 'led-names' used to map LED devices to their
respective functions.

Signed-off-by: Aleksandrs Vinarskis <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml    | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a63e78417df84609e279835f7dae62e3ad2f0bf5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/leds/leds-consumer.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Common leds consumer
+
+maintainers:
+  - Aleksandrs Vinarskis <alex@vinarskis.com>
+
+description:
+  Some LED defined in DT are required by other DT consumers, for example
+  v4l2 subnode may require privacy or flash LED.
+
+  Document LED properties that its consumers may define.

We already have the trigger-source binding for "attaching" LEDs to 
devices. Why does that not work here?

I have not actually considered this, as the existing privacy-led solution
from the original series is not trigger based. At least one of the reasons
for that is that trigger source can be rather easily altered from user
space, which would've been bad for this use case. If v4l2 acquires control
over the LED it actually removes triggers and disables sysfs on that LED.

So does that mean that v4l2 solves the problem of "trigger source can be
rather easily altered from user space"?

Best regards,
Krzysztof