On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:23 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Florian, > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:37:47PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > On 7/3/19 12:37 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > The LED behavior of some Realtek PHYs is configurable. Add the > > > property 'realtek,led-modes' to specify the configuration of the > > > LEDs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > Changes in v2: > > > - patch added to the series > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/realtek.txt | 9 +++++++++ > > > include/dt-bindings/net/realtek.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/net/realtek.h > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/realtek.txt > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/realtek.txt > > > index 71d386c78269..40b0d6f9ee21 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/realtek.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/realtek.txt > > > @@ -9,6 +9,12 @@ Optional properties: > > > > > > SSC is only available on some Realtek PHYs (e.g. RTL8211E). > > > > > > +- realtek,led-modes: LED mode configuration. > > > + > > > + A 0..3 element vector, with each element configuring the operating > > > + mode of an LED. Omitted LEDs are turned off. Allowed values are > > > + defined in "include/dt-bindings/net/realtek.h". > > > > This should probably be made more general and we should define LED modes > > that makes sense regardless of the PHY device, introduce a set of > > generic functions for validating and then add new function pointer for > > setting the LED configuration to the PHY driver. This would allow to be > > more future proof where each PHY driver could expose standard LEDs class > > devices to user-space, and it would also allow facilities like: ethtool > > -p to plug into that. > > > > Right now, each driver invents its own way of configuring LEDs, that > > does not scale, and there is not really a good reason for that other > > than reviewing drivers in isolation and therefore making it harder to > > extract the commonality. Yes, I realize that since you are the latest > > person submitting something in that area, you are being selected :)
I agree. > I see the merit of your proposal to come up with a generic mechanism > to configure Ethernet LEDs, however I can't justify spending much of > my work time on this. If it is deemed useful I'm happy to send another > version of the current patchset that addresses the reviewer's comments, > but if the implementation of a generic LED configuration interface is > a requirement I will have to abandon at least the LED configuration > part of this series. Can you at least define a common binding for this. Maybe that's just removing 'realtek'. While the kernel side can evolve to a common infrastructure, the DT bindings can't. Rob
