On Tuesday, September 9th, 2025 at 11:21, Hans de Goede <ha...@kernel.org>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> 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 a...@vinarskis.com
> > > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > + 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.
>
>
> 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.
Thanks,
Alex
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
