Hi All,

On 9-Sep-25 12:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:39AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 9/8/25 9:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 8-Sep-25 09:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 9/8/25 1:18 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:
>>>>> A number of existing schemas use 'leds' property to provide
>>>>> phandle-array of LED(s) to the consumer. Additionally, with the
>>>>> upcoming privacy-led support in device-tree, v4l2 subnode could be a
>>>>> LED consumer, meaning that all camera sensors should support 'leds'
>>>>> and 'led-names' property via common 'video-interface-devices.yaml'.
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid dublication, commonize 'leds' property from existing schemas
>>>>> to newly introduced 'led-consumer.yaml'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aleksandrs Vinarskis <alex@vinarskis.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> +  leds:
>>>>> +    minItems: 1
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>
>>>> My brain compiler suggests this will throw a warning (minItems should
>>>> be redundant in this case)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  led-names:
>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>> +      - privacy-led
>>>>
>>>> Nit: "privacy" makes more sense without the suffix, as we inherently
>>>> know this is supposed to be an LED
>>>
>>> Note "privacy-led" as name is already used on the x86/ACPI side and
>>> the code consuming this will be shared.
>>>
>>> With that said if there is a strong preference for going with just
>>> "privacy" the x86 side can be adjusted since the provider-info is
>>> generated through a LED lookup table on the x86/ACPI side. So we can
>>> just modify both the lookup table generation as well as the already
>>> existing led_get(dev, "privacy-led") call to use just "privacy"
>>> without problems.
>>
>> In that case, it may be cleaner to just go with what we have today
>> (unless the dt maintainers have stronger opinions)
> 
> Well, I do, but I guess it's fine. Please don't add the suffix on the 
> rest and add a comment for why it's there.

As mentioned dropping the "-led" suffix is no big deal for the ACPI
side and if we don't want the suffix then IMHO we should just drop
it rather then making an exception here.

Attached are 2 patches which drop the suffix on the ACPI side.

If people agree with dropping the suffix I'll officially submit these
upstream.

Regards,

Hans