On Fri Aug 15, 2025 at 1:00 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/08/2025 12:47, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>> The text description already mentioned the label property was
>> deprecated, but using the 'deprecated' property makes is clearer and
>> more explicit.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.yaml | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> 
>
> Please first read previous discussions:

[I reversed the order of the links so the oldest is first]

> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221122111124.6828-1-cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com/

Rob: "They ['function' and 'label'] serve 2 different purposes."

> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240509110545.49889-1-linux@fw-web.de/

Krzysztof: "I don't think there was conclusion to make it deprecated on
last attempt"

I agree.
What I don't understand: Why wasn't the text updated to correct the
incorrect statement about deprecation (that's how I interpret it now)?
Or some other conclusion being made and that that will be reflected in
the text and/or a deprecated property.

Otherwise the confusion remains and then it's just a matter of time
before a 4th person comes along proposing the same patch.
And possibly even more harmful: people use it incorrectly.

There's also this line:
"function-enumerator has no effect when this property is present."

if that is true, and I would assume so as that's what the binding says,
then I messed up even bigger then I already think I did in commit
1631cbdb8089 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Improve LED config for NanoPi R5S")
resulting in commit
912b1f2a796e ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Drop netdev led-triggers on NanoPi R5S")

... but I'd have expected that to be pointed out in the review.

I can understand that function-enumerator is used in an automatically
generated label when a label doesn't exist, but I'm inclined to think
the same "They serve 2 different purposes" applies here too.

Cheers,
  Diederik