Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: Clearly mark label property as deprecated

["Diederik de Haas" <didi.debian@cknow.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2631 bytes --]

On Wed Aug 20, 2025 at 10:14 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Whatever change you want to do here, I expect to address one way or
> another these previous discussions. If the code is confusing, refine the
> description. But not in a way which ignored previous feedbacks.

I'm not going to make a change.

I thought I would be making (more) explicit what the binding says.
Apparently I read/interpreted it incorrectly. What I described above is
how I currently interpret the *confusion* text/discussion. Is that
correct? I have no idea. That I'm at least the 3rd person proposing this
change indicates I'm not the only one who is confused.

IMO it's up to a/the maintainer to make a decision and that should then
be reflected in the binding, which should fix any confusion.

I hadn't looked at the code yet, but *I*IUC the code should follow the
binding, not the other way around. That's how I have interpreted
(mostly your) comments related to various binding patches ever since I
started actively following upstream(ing) work. Which (again) may be an
incorrect interpretation.

Regards,
  Diederik

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]