Hi, > > > + label = "dir-615-e4:green:power"; > > > > Sorry for causing confusion here. I have had a look into ar71xx > > mach files and they consistent use "d-link" as vendor for the > > led labels. Thus, I think it makes more sense to revert that to > > the previous version "d-link:green:power". > Yes, and that used to be wrong :) > Originally upstream said it was meant to be board name here, > "d-link" was always wrong. (this was an interpretation debate on > "uniqueness" see > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt?id=116b8e164116be537f50cdcce84d80be0facd0cf)
Well, just from the commit message and documentation only the "LED class device" has to be uniquely identified. That doesn't state in which set it has to be unique. One could also interpret this in a way that only the LEDs in a certain DTS (and thus for the device at hand) have to be unique, so you cannot label two of them "usb". > Of course, nowadays, they actually say that label itself is > deprecated, so if we're moving forwards, let's just use "color" > and "function" attributes instead directly? (though the new > attributes are only available since 2019-07-xx timeframes) I'd like that, and I never understood why the device part was actually introduced there. However, I'm too new as a committer to decide on that. > (Or > just drop them, labels are always only needed if didn't name the > node clearly enough, or wanted characters you weren't allowed in > the node name) Those labels are used for luci AFAIK, and I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of luci, so I cannot comment on this one. Best Adrian
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
