On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/gpio/led.txt
>> b/Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/gpio/led.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..7e9ce81
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/gpio/led.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>> +LED connected to GPIO
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible : should be "gpio-led".
>
> This "compatible" name is a bit too generic. No, I don't know a
> better name :-(
>
>> +- label : (optional) the label for this LED. If omitted, the label is
>> + taken from the node name (excluding the unit address).
>
> What is a label?
The label that is written on the board for this particular LED, or
the label that hardware documentation refers to.
> It should be described here. Also, its encoding
> should be described ("a string" I guess).
Yes.
>> +- gpios : should specify LED GPIO.
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>> + compatible = "gpio-led";
>> + label = "hdd";
>> + gpios = <&mcu_pio 0 0>;
>> +};
>
> You show a unit address but have no "reg" value. This is
> incorrect.
Hm.. how could I enumerate them then? Or should I just give them the
full names, i.e. "led-hdd" or something?
> What would be the parent node of this, btw?
This is tricky question. Personally I place them inside the gpio
controller node that is responsible for the LED. But I think placing the
led nodes at top level would be also fine (maybe with "leds { }" node as
a parent for all board's LEDs. What would you suggest for a "best
practice"?
Thanks,
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
