Hi, On 9-Sep-25 12:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:39AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 9/8/25 9:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 8-Sep-25 09:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>> On 9/8/25 1:18 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote: >>>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> + leds: >>>>> + minItems: 1 >>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>> >>>> My brain compiler suggests this will throw a warning (minItems should >>>> be redundant in this case) >>>>> + >>>>> + 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. Dropping the "-led" suffix on the ACPI side really is no big deal, so if we don't want the suffix it is probably best to also drop it for "privacy-led" rather then setting a bad example to be copy and pasted. Regards, Hans
