Hello Adrian, On 5/21/20 8:30 PM, m...@adrianschmutzler.de wrote: > "device" would have been my alternative choice. However, for me "device" > implies the full name (including vendor) even more. > In contrast, for me model implies that the vendor is not included (like we > use in for DEVICE_MODEL). I accept your argument about the DTS "model", > though. > > I agree that finding a proper name is hard here, however I don't think it's > really good to have $boardname and board_name standing for something > different.
I don't like to bikeshed about this topic but I'm with Matthias here. The meaning is always clear from the context, so i think the naming doesn't need to adapt to device. It's not we gain any benefit being it easier to understand or more lightweight code out of it. > > After all, it might be cleaner to keep $boardname for the model part, but > rename board_name to something more accurate, but I hesitate to touch this > function as it will break compatibility widely. > > Is there a reference somewhere about how the model:color:use scheme of the > LED labels has to be set up? I couldn't find one on a quick search, but maybe > it would be best to just pick what's used there, if there is any > documentation ... See the upstream documentation for the LED subsystem. [0] It states: There might be still LED class drivers around using vendor or product name for devicename, but this approach is now deprecated as it doesn't convey any added value. [0] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.6.14/source/Documentation/leds/leds-class.rst Best wishes David > > Best > > Adrian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
