Hi! > > Pavel gave following examples: > > > > eth0:green:link > > adsl0:green:link > > adsl0:red:error > > > > So we would have e.g.: > > > > associated-vl42-device = <&camera1>; > > associated-network-device = <&phy1>; > > associated-block-device = <&phy1>; > > Variable property names are kind of a pain to parse.
Ok, would it be enough to have associated-device = <&whatever>?
> Perhaps when LEDs are associated with a device, we shouldn't care
> within the context of the LED subsystem what the name is. The
> association is more important and if you have that exposed, then you
> don't really need to care what the name is. You still have to deal
> with a device with more than 1 LED, but that becomes a problem local
> to that device.
>
> What I'm getting at is following a more standard binding pattern of
> providers and consumers like we have for gpios, clocks, etc. So we'd
> have something like this:
>
> ethernet {
> ...
> leds = <&green_led>, <&red_led>;
> led-names = "link", "err";
> };
Basically every single device could have a LED associated with it
("activity"). Would doing it like this mean we'd have to modify every
single driver to parse leds / led-names properties?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
