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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191125151701.GB3816@amd>
Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:17:01 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, dtor@...gle.com,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Oleh Kravchenko <oleg@....org.ua>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Simon Shields <simon@...eageos.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/26] dt-bindings: leds: Add LED_FUNCTION definitions

On Fri 2019-11-15 14:01:50, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jacek,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:09 PM Jacek Anaszewski
> <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com> wrote:
> > Add initial set of common LED function definitions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
> 
> > --- a/include/dt-bindings/leds/common.h
> > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/leds/common.h
> > @@ -30,4 +31,45 @@
> >  #define LED_COLOR_ID_IR                7
> >  #define LED_COLOR_ID_MAX       8
> >
> > +/* Standard LED functions */
> > +#define LED_FUNCTION_ACTIVITY "activity"
> 
> What's the appropriate function for "general purpose" or "user" LEDs on
> development boards, where the LEDs don't have fixed functions, unlike
> on real products?
> Perhaps just LED_FUNCTION_INDICATOR?

I'd prefer such LEDs to not exist :-).

> I noticed your very initial submission defined LED_FUNCTION_USER "user".
> I couldn't find an explanation for the rationale behind its removal in later
> revisions, or any discussion asking for that.

There are "user" leds even on non-development boads... one is labeled
"scroll lock".

For the development board, I'd actually prefer to assign some
reasonable functions. If vendor BSP uses the LEDs for disk and network
indicators (for example) I'd just mark it as a disk and network
LEDs...

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ