Hi,

On 9-Sep-25 11:28 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:

On Tuesday, September 9th, 2025 at 11:21, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi All,

On 9-Sep-25 12:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:39AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

quoted

On 9/8/25 9:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 8-Sep-25 09:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

quoted

On 9/8/25 1:18 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:

quoted

A number of existing schemas use 'leds' property to provide
phandle-array of LED(s) to the consumer. Additionally, with the
upcoming privacy-led support in device-tree, v4l2 subnode could be a
LED consumer, meaning that all camera sensors should support 'leds'
and 'led-names' property via common 'video-interface-devices.yaml'.

To avoid dublication, commonize 'leds' property from existing schemas
to newly introduced 'led-consumer.yaml'.

Signed-off-by: Aleksandrs Vinarskis alex@vinarskis.com
---

[...]

quoted

+ leds:
+ minItems: 1
+ maxItems: 1

My brain compiler suggests this will throw a warning (minItems should
be redundant in this case)

quoted

+
+ led-names:
+ enum:
+ - privacy-led

Nit: "privacy" makes more sense without the suffix, as we inherently
know this is supposed to be an LED

Note "privacy-led" as name is already used on the x86/ACPI side and
the code consuming this will be shared.

With that said if there is a strong preference for going with just
"privacy" the x86 side can be adjusted since the provider-info is
generated through a LED lookup table on the x86/ACPI side. So we can
just modify both the lookup table generation as well as the already
existing led_get(dev, "privacy-led") call to use just "privacy"
without problems.

In that case, it may be cleaner to just go with what we have today
(unless the dt maintainers have stronger opinions)

Well, I do, but I guess it's fine. Please don't add the suffix on the
rest and add a comment for why it's there.

As mentioned dropping the "-led" suffix is no big deal for the ACPI
side and if we don't want the suffix then IMHO we should just drop
it rather then making an exception here.

Attached are 2 patches which drop the suffix on the ACPI side.

If people agree with dropping the suffix I'll officially submit these
upstream.

Sounds like this is the preferred way. Could you please CC me when you
submit it? I will then respin this series and indicate yours as
dependency.

Done, including adding you to the Cc.

Regards,

Hans