linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: Improve LEDs on NanoPi R6C/R6S

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <7cc3d7c4-d0c9-45f3-ada9-d0e0d3fe7cc2@mail.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:51:14 +0200
From: Sebastian Kropatsch <seb-dev@...l.de>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: Improve LEDs on NanoPi R6C/R6S

Am 20.06.2024 um 20:42 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2024, 22:48:12 CEST schrieb Sebastian Kropatsch:
>> DT validation doesn't like the 'linux,default-trigger = "stmmac-0:01:link"'
>> properties, since "*:link" is not a valid value according to
>> [Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.yaml]. These LEDs do
>> have the specific purpose to show if an Ethernet link is up though.
>> There is one LED for each Ethernet port and they are labeled WAN and
>> LAN.
>> Using the 'linux,default-trigger' like this does work perfectly fine
>> with this solution. I could not find another way to achieve this. Please
>> let me know if there is a better way.
>> Maybe it would also be valid to add an entry to the DT bindings file to
>> allow "*:link" as a value for 'linux,default-trigger'?
> 
> correct. If needed, things should be added to binding.

Alright, I'll add this to the binding at
[Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.yaml]

Should this be a completely separate patch or is it preferred
to add a patch to this NanoPi patch series?

Cheers,
Sebastian