On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 12:43:15AM GMT, Nam Tran wrote:
> +patternProperties:
> + "^led@[0-3]$":
> + type: object
> + $ref: common.yaml#
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> + properties:
> + led-cur:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8
> + description: |
> + LED current in 0.1 mA steps (e.g., 150 = 15.0 mA; 0 if not connected)
> + minimum: 0
> + maximum: 255
> +
> + max-cur:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8
> + description: Maximum allowed current in 0.1 mA steps
> +
> + reg:
> + minimum: 0
> + maximum: 3
Place properties according to DTS coding style.
> +
> + '^multi-led@[4-7]$':
> + type: object
> + $ref: leds-class-multicolor.yaml#
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> + properties:
> + reg:
> + minimum: 4
> + maximum: 7
> +
> + '#address-cells':
Don't mix quotes. Either ' or "
> + const: 1
> +
> + '#size-cells':
> + const: 0
> +
> + patternProperties:
> + "^led@[4-9a-f]$":
> + type: object
> + $ref: common.yaml#
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> + properties:
> + led-cur:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8
No, use existing led common properties. Also observe the units - this is
not uint8 but a defined type for microamp, see property-units in
dtschema.
> + description: |
> + LED current in 0.1 mA steps (e.g., 150 = 15.0 mA; 0 if not connected)
> + minimum: 0
> + maximum: 255
> +
> + max-cur:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8
No, use existing led common properties. Same everywhere.
> + description: Maximum allowed current in 0.1 mA steps
> +
> + reg:
> + minimum: 4
> + maximum: 15
> +
> + required:
> + - reg
> +
> +required:
> + - compatible
> + - reg
> +
> +additionalProperties: false
> +
> +examples:
> + - |
> + #include <dt-bindings/leds/common.h>
> +
> + i2c {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + led-controller@1b {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + compatible = "ti,lp5812";
> + reg = <0x1b>;
> + vcc-supply = <&vdd_3v3_reg>;
> +
> + led@0 {
> + reg = <0x0>;
Messed/mixed indentation.
BTW, such significant binding change at v9, invalidting reviews and
rewriting the binding completely, is surprising.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
