linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC v10 03/19] DT: leds: Add led-sources property

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: <CAL_JsqLqRn1QG6dG5Ea6231SNzrV=Q9K=uRqjziM9sDdA3+31g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:37:19 -0600
From:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>, sakari.ailus@....fi,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v10 03/19] DT: leds: Add led-sources property

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki
<s.nawrocki@...sung.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/15 18:06, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:55:29AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Jacek Anaszewski
>>>> > > There are however devices that don't fall into this category, i.e. they
>>>> > > have many outputs, that can be connected to a single LED or to many LEDs
>>>> > > and the driver has to know what is the actual arrangement.
>>> >
>>> > We may need to extend the regulator binding slightly and allow for
>>> > multiple phandles on a supply property, but wouldn't something like
>>> > this work:
>>> > led-supply = <&led-reg0>, <&led-reg1>, <&led-reg2>, <&led-reg3>;
>>> > The shared source is already supported by the regulator binding.
>>
>> What is the reasoning for this?  If a single supply is being supplied by
>> multiple regulators then in general those regulators will all know about
>> each other at a hardware level and so from a functional and software
>> point of view will effectively be one regulator.  If they don't/aren't
>> then they tend to interfere with each other.
>
> For LED current regulators like this one [1] we want to be able to
> communicate to the software the hardware wiring, e.g. if a single LED is
> connected to only one or both the current regulators.  The device needs
> to be programmed differently for each configuration, as shown on page 36
> of the datasheet [2].
>
> Now, the LED DT binding describes the LEDs (current consumers) as child
> nodes of the LED driver IC (current supplier), e.g. (from [3]):
>
> pca9632@62 {
>         compatible = "nxp,pca9632";
>         #address-cells = <1>;
>         #size-cells = <0>;
>         reg = <0x62>;
>
>         red@0 {
>                 label = "red";
>                 reg = <0>;

This only works if you don't have sub blocks or different functions to
describe. I suppose you could add yet another level of nodes. This
feels like abuse of the reg property even though to use the reg
property is a frequent review comment.

OTOH, we don't need 2 ways to describe this.

>                 linux,default-trigger = "none";
>         };
>         green@1 {
>                 label = "green";
>                 reg = <1>;
>                 linux,default-trigger = "none";
>         };
>         ...
> };
>
> What is missing in this binding is the ability to tell that a single LED
> is connected to more than one current source.
>
> We could, for example adopt the multiple phandle in the supply property
> scheme, but not use the kernel regulator API, e.g.
>
> flash-led {
>          compatible = "maxim,max77387";
>
>          current-reg1 { // FLED1
>                  led-output-id = <0>;
>          };
>
>          current-reg2 { // FLED2
>                  led-output-id = <1>;
>          };
>
>          red_led {
>                  led-supply = <&current-reg1>, <&current-reg2>;
>          };
> };
>
> However my feeling is that it is unnecessarily complicated that way.

This example is not so complicated, but I already agreed on not using
regulators on the basis there are other properties of the driver
unique to LEDs.

> Perhaps we could use the 'reg' property to describe actual connections,
> I'm not sure if it's better than a LED specific property, e.g.
>
> max77387@52 {
>         compatible = "nxp,max77387";
>         #address-cells = <2>;
>         #size-cells = <0>;
>         reg = <0x52>;
>
>         flash_led {
>                 reg = <1 1>;

Don't you mean <0 1> as the values are the "address" which in this
case are the LED driver output indexes.

Rob

>                 ...
>         };
> };
>
> [1] http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/power/led-drivers/MAX77387.html
> [2] http://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/MAX77387.pdf
> [3] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/pca963x.txt
--
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/