[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <38534a25-4bb3-4371-b80b-abfc259de781@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:23:59 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5 10/15] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-controller:
Document support for LEDs node
> > Are specific ethernet controllers allowed to add their own properties in
> > led nodes? If so, this doesn't work. As-is, this allows any other
> > properties. You need 'unevaluatedProperties: false' here to prevent
> > that. But then no one can add properties. If you want to support that,
> > then you need this to be a separate schema that devices can optionally
> > include if they don't extend the properties, and then devices that
> > extend the binding would essentially have the above with:
> >
> > $ref: /schemas/leds/common.yaml#
> > unevaluatedProperties: false
> > properties:
> > a-custom-device-prop: ...
> >
> >
> > If you wanted to define both common ethernet LED properties and
> > device specific properties, then you'd need to replace leds/common.yaml
> > above with the ethernet one.
> >
> > This is all the same reasons the DSA/switch stuff and graph bindings are
> > structured the way they are.
> >
>
> Hi Rob, thanks for the review/questions.
>
> The idea of all of this is to keep leds node as standard as possible.
> It was asked to add unevaluatedProperties: False but I didn't understood
> it was needed also for the led nodes.
>
> leds/common.yaml have additionalProperties set to true but I guess that
> is not OK for the final schema and we need something more specific.
>
> Looking at the common.yaml schema reg binding is missing so an
> additional schema is needed.
>
> Reg is needed for ethernet LEDs and PHY but I think we should also permit
> to skip that if the device actually have just one LED. (if this wouldn't
> complicate the implementation. Maybe some hints from Andrew about this
> decision?)
I would make reg mandatory.
We should not encourage additional properties, but i also think we
cannot block it.
The problem we have is that there is absolutely no standardisation
here. Vendors are free to do whatever they want, and they do. So i
would not be too surprised if some vendor properties are needed
eventually.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists