netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Document new LEDs polarity 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: <6583705d.050a0220.6e903.083d@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:53:14 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"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>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Document new LEDs
 polarity property

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 09:22:09AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Document new LEDs polarity property to define what mode the LED needs to
> > be put to turn it on.
> > 
> > Currently supported modes are:
> > 
> > - active-low
> > - active-high
> > - active-low-tristate
> > - active-high-tristate
> 
> Why is having a polarity unique to LEDs on ethernet PHYs? It's not. We 
> already have 'active-low' established on several LED bindings. Please 
> move the definition to leds/common.yaml and extend it. I would simply 
> add an 'inactive-tristate' boolean property (if there's an actual user). 
>

Should I also drop the active-low from the current schema that have it?

Also we have led-active-low. (should we support both?)

On the marvell10g series we are discussing of using tristate or not. We
notice tristate might be confusing, would it be better to use
inactive-high-impedance ?

> I do worry this continues to evolve until we've re-created the pinctrl 
> binding...
> 

-- 
	Ansuel