Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: leds: lacie,netxbig-leds: Convert to DT schema

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 14/09/2026 19:58, Uday Kiran wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 1:20 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/09/2026 16:29, Uday Kiran wrote:
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    const: lacie,netxbig-leds
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  gpio-ext:
>>>>> +    description: Phandle for the gpio-ext bus.
>>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  timers:
>>>>> +    description: |
>>>>> +      Timer array. Each timer entry is represented by three integers:
>>>>> +      Mode (gpio-ext bus), delay_on and delay_off.
>>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
>>>>> +
>>>>> +patternProperties:
>>>>> +  "^(?!gpio-ext$|pinctrl-[0-9]+$)[a-z][a-z0-9]*(-[a-z0-9]+)+$":
>>>>
>>>> This is an odd pattern. Why is pinctrl an LED? or gpio-ext?
>>>>
>>>> Actually entire pattern is very odd - it has $ in the middle, but then
>>>> followed with other REQUIRED stuff. I am surprised it works, but
>>>> regardless it is absolutely not readable. Looks like a begative pattern,
>>>> but why would you have negative pattern for known properties?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review Krzysztof.
>>>
>>> The negative lookahead was added because patternProperties matches all top-
>>> level property names that fit the pattern, so excluded known top-level
>>> properties like gpio-ext and pinctrl-*;
>>>
>>> In patch v1, I've used additionalProperties which removes the regex entirely
>>> and allows arbitrary child-node names. But removed and used patternProperties
>>> as per the review feedback.
>>>
>>> Could you please suggest to me which way to proceed? with additionalProperties
>>> or patternProperties
>>
>>
>> The children are leds, so they should use generic node name pattern like
>> "^led-[a-z0-9]+$"
> 
> Yes, Krzysztof but the original binding uses blue-power, red-power,
> blue-sata0, etc.
> as LED child node names. Would you like me to rename these nodes to
> led-blue-power, led-red-power, etc. to use the suggested
> ^led-[a-z0-9]+$ pattern,
> or should I retain the existing node names and use a more specific
> pattern for them
> like "^(blue|red)-(power|sata[0-9]+)$"

I did not see original binding mentioning any names. Neither in the driver.

Best regards,
Krzysztof