linux-kernel - Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 1/2] drivers: net: dsa: qca8k: add support for led config

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: <YUjq1Al7s5fP7PBa@Ansuel-xps.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:11:00 +0200
From:   Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 1/2] drivers: net: dsa: qca8k: add support
 for led config

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 09:19:13PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Yes, can you point me to the discussion?
> 
> It has gone through many cycles :-(
> 
> The linux-led list is probably the better archive to look through, it
> is a lot lower volume than netdev.
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg18652.html
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg18527.html
> 
> 

Thanks for the links.

> > I post this as RFC for this exact reason... I read somehwere that there
> > was a discussion on how to implementd leds for switch but never ever
> > found it.
> 
> Most of the discussion so far has been about PHY LEDs, where the PHY
> driver controls the LEDs. However some Ethernet switches also have LED
> controls, which are not part of the PHY. And then there are some MAC
> drivers which control the PHY in firmware, and have firmware calls for
> controlling the LEDs. We need a generic solution which scales across
> all this. And it needs to work without DT, or at least, not block ACPI
> being added later.
> 
> But progress is slow. I hope that the PHY use case will drive things
> forward, get the ABI defined. We can then scale it out to include
> switches, maybe with a bit of code refactoring.
> 
> 	  Andrew

Wow... What a mess. Tell me if I'm wrong but it seems progress is stuck.
I can see the api proposal patch had no review from June. Should I put a
message there to try to move things up?