Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings
From: Conor Dooley
Date: Wed Mar 18 2026 - 13:19:07 EST
Christian,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:19:20PM +0100, Jens Emil Schulz Ostergaard wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Fri, 2026-03-06 at 15:20 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 04:08:01PM +0100, Jens Emil Schulz Ostergaard wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2026-03-05 at 18:31 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 01:57:37PM +0100, Jens Emil Schulz Ostergaard wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For 1, what happens to LED2? Not used at all?
> > > > >
> > > > > In mode 1 LED2 will be open-drain. This mode only makes sense if you have
> > > > > just 1 LED. With two LEDs mode 0 or mode 3 should be used.
> > > >
> > > > Could we then have child nodes for each led, and have a property in each
> > > > that sets the mode to either open-drain or active-drive? Or am I just
> > > > inserting complexity by asking for that?
> > >
> > > I think it sounds sensible, I will add this.
> >
> >
> > You don't need a property for each, just make one mode the default (prob
> > open-drain given it's the 0 setting, but whatever is default out of
> > reset for the part) and have the property for the other mode. Just
> > some bool property like "microchip,active-drive" or whatever.
>
>
> Based on your feedback I went with this under port properties:
>
> leds:
> patternProperties:
> '^led@[a-f0-9]+$':
> $ref: /schemas/leds/common.yaml#
>
> properties:
> reg:
> maxItems: 1
>
> microchip,active-drive:
> type: boolean
> description:
> Set the LED output to active drive mode. The default
> is open-drain.
>
> required:
> - reg
>
> unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> and then the example has
>
> port@1 {
> reg = <1>;
> phy-mode = "gmii";
> phy-handle = <&cuphy1>;
>
> leds {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> led@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> microchip,active-drive;
> };
>
> led@1 {
> reg = <1>;
> microchip,active-drive;
> };
> };
> }
>
> However, this does not pass dt_binding_check because we pull in $ref: dsa-port.yaml,
> which pulls in ethernet-controller.yaml.
>
> I believe the 'unevaluatedProperties: false' on LED nodes in ethernet-controller.yaml
> prevents downstream bindings from adding vendor-specific LED properties.
>
> Is the right move removing unevaluatedProperties: false from the LED node in
> ethernet-controller.yaml, or is there a preferred way to extend per-port LEDs?
The addition looks recent enough, should probably ask Christian why it
was done this way and if removing it makes sense. Christian?
Cheers,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature