| Message ID | 20220818172528.23062-1-pali@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] dt-bindings: leds: register-bit-led: Add active-low property | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success | |
| robh/dtbs-check | warning | build log |
| robh/dt-meta-schema | success |
On 18/08/2022 20:25, Pali Rohár wrote: > Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via > active-low property. > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > index 79b8fc0f9d23..5c6ef26f1a94 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ properties: > 0x100000, 0x200000, 0x400000, 0x800000, 0x1000000, 0x2000000, 0x4000000, > 0x8000000, 0x10000000, 0x20000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000 ] > > + active-low: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag This could be shorter: type: boolean Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Although the question is - where is the user of it? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Friday 19 August 2022 09:46:56 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Although the question is - where is the user of it?
I was planning to send updated powerpc DTS files with these
register-bit-led definitions after accepting dt bindings.
Hi! > > Although the question is - where is the user of it? > > I was planning to send updated powerpc DTS files with these > register-bit-led definitions after accepting dt bindings. We need device tree people to ack them, first. But a note saying "this is for Turris Omnia router" would be welcome. Best regards, Pavel
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via > active-low property. > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> This looks helpful and solves a real-world problem. Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
On 19/08/2022 11:08, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>> Although the question is - where is the user of it? >> >> I was planning to send updated powerpc DTS files with these >> register-bit-led definitions after accepting dt bindings. > > We need device tree people to ack them, first. But a note saying "this > is for Turris Omnia router" would be welcome. In general the process is one of: 1. Send DT bindings with driver and DTS changes, 2. Send DT bindings with driver in one patchset, DTS in second but you mention the dependency. You should not wait with DTS till bindings got accepted. Why? Because for example we do not want bindings for stuff which never is going to be upstreamed (with several exceptions, e.g. for other systems). Also because we want to be able to compare bindings with your DTS implementing them, so we are sure you described everything (especially that you said running one command to install dtchema and second command to make the check is not possible in your system). Without DTS here how can anyone be sure your DTS actually follows the bindings? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Friday 19 August 2022 11:38:29 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/08/2022 11:08, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >>> Although the question is - where is the user of it? > >> > >> I was planning to send updated powerpc DTS files with these > >> register-bit-led definitions after accepting dt bindings. > > > > We need device tree people to ack them, first. But a note saying "this > > is for Turris Omnia router" would be welcome. > > In general the process is one of: > 1. Send DT bindings with driver and DTS changes, > 2. Send DT bindings with driver in one patchset, DTS in second but you > mention the dependency. > > You should not wait with DTS till bindings got accepted. Why? Because > for example we do not want bindings for stuff which never is going to be > upstreamed (with several exceptions, e.g. for other systems). Also > because we want to be able to compare bindings with your DTS > implementing them, so we are sure you described everything (especially > that you said running one command to install dtchema and second command > to make the check is not possible in your system). > > Without DTS here how can anyone be sure your DTS actually follows the > bindings? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Well, last time I was told that first needs to be accepted bindings documentation and then device tree files. So I did it like this. And now it is again feasible and different steps and ordering is needed... Sorry I cannot known all requirements which are moreover changing every day.
On 19/08/2022 11:42, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 19 August 2022 11:38:29 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/08/2022 11:08, Pavel Machek wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>>>> Although the question is - where is the user of it? >>>> >>>> I was planning to send updated powerpc DTS files with these >>>> register-bit-led definitions after accepting dt bindings. >>> >>> We need device tree people to ack them, first. But a note saying "this >>> is for Turris Omnia router" would be welcome. >> >> In general the process is one of: >> 1. Send DT bindings with driver and DTS changes, >> 2. Send DT bindings with driver in one patchset, DTS in second but you >> mention the dependency. >> >> You should not wait with DTS till bindings got accepted. Why? Because >> for example we do not want bindings for stuff which never is going to be >> upstreamed (with several exceptions, e.g. for other systems). Also >> because we want to be able to compare bindings with your DTS >> implementing them, so we are sure you described everything (especially >> that you said running one command to install dtchema and second command >> to make the check is not possible in your system). >> >> Without DTS here how can anyone be sure your DTS actually follows the >> bindings? >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > Well, last time I was told that first needs to be accepted bindings > documentation and then device tree files. So I did it like this. And now > it is again feasible and different steps and ordering is needed... > Sorry I cannot known all requirements which are moreover changing every > day. The rule is the same from years and no one was changing it. All driver submitters, all DTS developers follow this. You are literally the one of very few which is surprised by that generic rule and call it "a change". The patches should be accepted by maintainers in such order (so without bindings acceptance, the driver and DTS should not go), but not the sending order. It's the same with sysfs ABI. Exactly the same. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Friday 19 August 2022 10:42:22 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 19 August 2022 11:38:29 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 19/08/2022 11:08, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > >>> Although the question is - where is the user of it? > > >> > > >> I was planning to send updated powerpc DTS files with these > > >> register-bit-led definitions after accepting dt bindings. > > > > > > We need device tree people to ack them, first. But a note saying "this > > > is for Turris Omnia router" would be welcome. > > > > In general the process is one of: > > 1. Send DT bindings with driver and DTS changes, > > 2. Send DT bindings with driver in one patchset, DTS in second but you > > mention the dependency. > > > > You should not wait with DTS till bindings got accepted. Why? Because > > for example we do not want bindings for stuff which never is going to be > > upstreamed (with several exceptions, e.g. for other systems). Also > > because we want to be able to compare bindings with your DTS > > implementing them, so we are sure you described everything (especially > > that you said running one command to install dtchema and second command > > to make the check is not possible in your system). > > > > Without DTS here how can anyone be sure your DTS actually follows the > > bindings? > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > Well, last time I was told that first needs to be accepted bindings > documentation and then device tree files. So I did it like this. And now > it is again feasible and different steps and ordering is needed... > Sorry I cannot known all requirements which are moreover changing every > day. Here it is: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20220819084433.26011-1-pali@kernel.org/
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > This new active-low property specify that LED has inverted logic > (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED). > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
On Friday 26 August 2022 10:05:26 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > > > This new active-low property specify that LED has inverted logic > > (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED). > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > Yours, > Linus Walleij Is something else needed for this patch series?
On Wednesday 31 August 2022 13:49:36 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 26 August 2022 10:05:26 Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > This new active-low property specify that LED has inverted logic > > > (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > > Yours, > > Linus Walleij > > Is something else needed for this patch series? PING?
On Sunday 09 October 2022 13:40:43 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2022 13:49:36 Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 26 August 2022 10:05:26 Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > This new active-low property specify that LED has inverted logic > > > > (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > > > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > > > > Yours, > > > Linus Walleij > > > > Is something else needed for this patch series? > > PING? PING?
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:33 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sunday 09 October 2022 13:40:43 Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 August 2022 13:49:36 Pali Rohár wrote: > > > On Friday 26 August 2022 10:05:26 Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This new active-low property specify that LED has inverted logic > > > > > (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > Linus Walleij > > > > > > Is something else needed for this patch series? > > > > PING? > > PING? If the LED subsystem isn't working consider sending the patch to the SoC tree with a notice that they apply it instead and why. Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml index 79b8fc0f9d23..5c6ef26f1a94 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ properties: 0x100000, 0x200000, 0x400000, 0x800000, 0x1000000, 0x2000000, 0x4000000, 0x8000000, 0x10000000, 0x20000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000 ] + active-low: + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag + description: + LED is ON when bit in register is not set + offset: description: register offset to the register controlling this LED
Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via active-low property. Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)