Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:07:30 +0400 | From | Anton Vorontsov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] leds: implement OpenFirmare GPIO LED driver |
| |
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: >> + >> +led@0 { >> + 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: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
| |