Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings

[Jens Emil Schulz Ostergaard]

On Tue, 2026-03-03 at 19:04 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 03:18:45PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > +        properties:
> > > +          microchip,led-drive-mode:
> > > +            $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> > > +            description: |
> > > +              Set the LED drive mode for the copper PHY associated with
> > > +              this port.
> > > +
> > > +                0 - LED1 and LED2 in open-drain mode
> > > +                1 - LED1 in active drive mode (can be used for single-LED
> > > +                    configurations requiring active drive)
> > > +                2 - Reserved
> > > +                3 - LED1 and LED2 in active drive mode
> > > +            minimum: 0
> > > +            maximum: 3
> > 
> > I doubt the DT Maintainers will accept that. This looks a lot like a
> > value you write into a register. How are active drive and open-drain
> > described in other DT bindings? Is there something you can reuse?
> 
> I had a quick look and I didn't see anything really that stood out to me
> that would be a drop-in replacement.
> I also tried looking in the datasheet for more information on these
> modes, but I couldn't see anything obvious. For example, there were zero
> hits for "drain" in either LAN9645xS or LAN9645xF datasheets.
> 
> That said, yea you're right about DT maintainer feelings about it.
> There's a couple things I could suggest, but I'd like to know about what
> mode 1 means for LED2 first. If there's actually nothing similar, what
> about representing each led with a child node and having open-drain be
> the default with a property in the child for active-drive?
> 

I will ask design about mode 1 and LED2, and get back to you. The register
model I have does not mention LED2.

> > 
> > For 1, what happens to LED2? Not used at all?
> > 
> >     Andrew