linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] leds: Support OpenFirmware led bindings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807272159500.26456@t2.domain.actdsltmp>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...escale.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] leds: Support OpenFirmware led bindings

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:01:45PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
>> Add bindings to support LEDs defined as of_platform devices in addition to
>> the existing bindings for platform devices.
>
>> +- gpios :  Should specify the LED GPIO.
>
> Question: it is possible/desirable for a single LED to be assigned
> multiple GPIO pins?  Say, for a tri-color LED?  (I'm fishing for
> opinions; I really don't know if it would be a good idea or not)

Good question.  The Linux LED layer has no concept of multi-color LEDs, so
it's more difficult that just adding support to the gpio led driver.  I have
a device with a tri-color red/green/orange LED and this posed some
difficulty.  It's defined as independent red and greed LEDs, which is mostly
fine, except I wanted it to flash orange.  I can make both the red LED and
green LED flash, but there is nothing to insure their flashing remains in
sync.

Other OF bindings allow multiple GPIOs to be listed in a gpios property, so
that's not a problem if someone wants to do that.  There would need to be a
way to define what the gpios mean.  I don't think it's worthwhile to come up
with a binding for that until there is a real user.

>> +- function :  (optional) This parameter, if present, is a string
>> +  defining the function of the LED.  It can be used to put the LED
>> +  under software control, e.g. Linux LED triggers like "heartbeat",
>> +  "ide-disk", and "timer".  Or it could be used to attach a hardware
>> +  signal to the LED, e.g. a SoC that can configured to put a SATA
>> +  activity signal on a GPIO line.
>
> This makes me nervous.  It exposes Linux internal implementation details
> into the device tree data.  If you want to have a property that
> describes the LED usage, then the possible values and meanings should be
> documented here.

Should it be a linux specific property then?  I could list all the current
linux triggers, but enumerating every possible function someone might want
to assign to an LED seems hopeless.

>> +		led.default_trigger =
>> +			of_get_property(child, "linux,default-trigger", NULL);
>
> This isn't in the documented binding.  I assume that you mean 'function'
> here?

Looks like I emailed the wrong patch file.  That should be changed to
"function" and there are a few cosmetic changes that are missing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/