On 9/9/25 10:39 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 9-Sep-25 6:57 PM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 8th, 2025 at 01:18, Aleksandrs Vinarskis >> <a...@vinarskis.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Introduce common generic led consumer binding, where consumer defines >>> led(s) by phandle, as opposed to trigger-source binding where the >>> trigger source is defined in led itself. >>> >>> Add already used in some schemas 'leds' parameter which expects >>> phandle-array. Additionally, introduce 'led-names' which could be used >>> by consumers to map LED devices to their respective functions. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aleksandrs Vinarskis a...@vinarskis.com >>> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index >>> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d50a3850f6336e9e3a52eb1374e36ea50de27f47 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-consumer.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/leds/leds-consumer.yaml# >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> + >>> +title: Common leds consumer >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Aleksandrs Vinarskis a...@vinarskis.com >>> >>> + >>> +description: >>> + Some LED defined in DT are required by other DT consumers, for example >>> + v4l2 subnode may require privacy or flash LED. Unlike trigger-source >>> + approach which is typically used as 'soft' binding, referencing LED >>> + devices by phandle makes things simpler when 'hard' binding is desired. >>> + >>> + Document LED properties that its consumers may define. >>> + >>> +select: true >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + leds: >>> + oneOf: >>> + - type: object >>> + - $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array >>> + description: >>> + A list of LED device(s) required by a particular consumer. >>> + items: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> + led-names: >> >> While going over the feedback I realized `leds` and `led-names` do >> not follow `property`, `property-names` convention. Any objections >> if I rename `led-names` to `leds-names` for consistency? > > No objections from me, `leds-names` indeed is better.
FWIW we have "clocks"/"clock-names", "resets"/"reset-names" etc. I sometimes refer to "property"/"property-names" during review to bring attention to the preferred style (ordering of such entries), which is maybe what confused you Konrad
