> -----Original Message----- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Piotr Dymacz > Sent: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 14:23 > To: Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>; Adrian Schmutzler > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ath79: remove model name from LED labels > > Hi Felix, Adrian, > > On 30.09.2020 13:53, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > > > On 2020-09-30 13:43, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel- > [email protected]] > >>> On Behalf Of Adrian Schmutzler > >>> Sent: Sonntag, 27. September 2020 23:55 > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] ath79: remove model name from LED labels > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> since there doesn't seem to be any interest in the subject initially, I'd > >> also > be interested if there are any general objections towards dropping > "devicename" and using "color:function" scheme on LEDs. > >> > >> I'd actually be quite happy to get rid of this obstacle that annoyed me > consistently throughout my involvement with OpenWrt. > > The devicename in the LEDs has also annoyed me often enough. No idea > > why it was added in the first place. > > It comes from upstream (2006-2008): > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/75c1d31d9ea71025b73430c696b7 > 27e8aa15872d > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/6c152beefbf90579d21afc4f7e075 > b1f801f9a75 > > > I think getting rid of it is a really good idea. > > It doesn't bring us closer to the current upstream approach (functions and > colors IDs) but should make things easier for contributors and reviewers.
Actually, it does, since the new upstream approach does not include a devicename in its legacy meaning (i.e. the name of the "whole" device). Instead, they _plan_ to use the name of internal devices (e.g. phy0) for the first part of the LED name when applicable (e.g. wlan0:green:activity for the WiFi 2.4g LED). The LEDs "assigned" to the whole device itself will then have only two parts, e.g. "green:power", and that's exactly what I want to do now anyway. While we cannot use the upstream approach at the moment as it's not ready, the removal of devicename seems a good step for now, and as I understand it it's still a step into the right direction. Thanks for your feedback. Best Adrian Further reading: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/3437 https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg16592.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg16594.html > > -- > Cheers, > Piotr > > > > > - Felix > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
