linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] leds: core: Add support for led-instance 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: <aVF4g_W2KHQ53gbJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 20:35:47 +0200
From: Andriy Shevencho <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Brophy <professorjonny98@...il.com>
Cc: lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>,
	Jonathan Brophy <professor_jonny@...mail.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Radoslav Tsvetkov <rtsvetkov@...dotech.eu>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] leds: core: Add support for led-instance property

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 07:22:44AM +1300, Jonathan Brophy wrote:
> From: Jonathan Brophy <professor_jonny@...mail.com>
> 
> Add support for parsing an optional "led-instance" device tree property
> that provides a third component in LED naming for deterministic
> identification when multiple LEDs share the same function and color.
> 
> The led-instance becomes part of the LED name as:
>   color:function:instance
> 
> This solves the non-deterministic _1, _2 suffix problem for hardware
> with many identical LEDs (e.g., 48-port network switches).

> +parse_instance:
> +	/* Parse optional instance identifier */
> +	if (fwnode_property_present(fwnode, "led-instance")) {
> +		ret = fwnode_property_read_string(fwnode, "led-instance", instance);
> +		if (ret)
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error parsing 'led-instance' property (%d)\n", ret);
> +	}
>  }

But this will be called unconditionally even if the
function/function-enumerator is present. Wouldn't these be conflicting options?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko