Hi Krzysztof,

On 4-Sep-25 11:45 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 04/09/2025 09:26, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+maintainers:
+  - Aleksandrs Vinarskis [off-list ref]
+
+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"?

Yes, currently the v4l2-core already does:

Thanks, I understand that it solves the problem described in the patch,
so the patch can be dropped.

I'm a bit confused now, do you mean that this dt-bindings patch can
be dropped ?

The existing v4l2-core code solves getting the privacy-LED on ACPI/x86_64,
on DT there is no official bindings-docs for directly getting a LED with
led_get() AFAICT and I believe that having a binding is mandatory before
we just start adding leds and led-names properties to DT nodes for sensors ?

Maybe for v2 of this patch-set Aleksanders should also add a patch
actually using the new binding in a dts file to make clear that
the intent is to also start using privacy-LEDs in the same way
on DT systems ?

Regards,

Hans