Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3399-roc-pc: Fix MMC numbering for LED triggers

[Johan Jonker]

On 4/27/20 12:33 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 6:09 PM Johan Jonker <jbx6244@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/27/20 11:17 AM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:57 PM Johan Jonker <jbx6244@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chen-Yu,
>>>>
>>>>> From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> With SDIO now enabled, the numbering of the existing MMC host controllers
>>>>> gets incremented by 1, as the SDIO host is the first one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Increment the numbering of the MMC LED triggers to match.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: cf3c5397835f ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Enable sdio0 and uart0 on rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi          | 4 ++--
>>>>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts
>>>>> index 2acb3d500fb9..f0686fc276be 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts
>>>>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ vcc3v3_pcie: vcc3v3-pcie {
>>>>>       };
>>>>>  };
>>>>>
>>>>> +&diy_led {
>>
>>>>> +     linux,default-trigger = "mmc2";
>>
>> If you decide to use a free form trigger that is not a 'standard' one,
>> then it becomes a user property.
>> User defined properties should not go in a generic dts.
>> It's up to the user what function he/she gives to that led!
> 
> The original (in the base .dtsi file for this series of boards) trigger
> is already a non-standard, i.e. not listed in the bindings, one.
> 
> Now I would very much like to get rid of user specific stuff, and I
> also mentioned that in the previous round of discussions. No one said
> anything.
> 
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>>  &pcie_phy {
>>>>>       status = "okay";
>>>>>  };
>>>>> @@ -91,3 +95,7 @@ &uart0 {
>>>>>       pinctrl-0 = <&uart0_xfer &uart0_cts &uart0_rts>;
>>>>>       status = "okay";
>>>>>  };
>>>>> +
>>>>> +&yellow_led {
>>>>> +     linux,default-trigger = "mmc1";
>>>>> +};
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi
>>>>> index 9f225e9c3d54..bc060ac7972d 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -70,14 +70,14 @@ work-led {
>>>>>                       linux,default-trigger = "heartbeat";
>>>>>               };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -             diy-led {
>>>>> +             diy_led: diy-led {
>>>>
>>>> This changes an existing nodename into something that is still not the
>>
>> Correction:
>> It takes an existing nodename and adds a label.
> 
> OK.
> 
>>>> preferred way. In the current Rockchip dts there are nodenames like
>>>> 'work', 'yellow' that causing warnings with the command:
>>>
>>> This doesn't change the node name at all. It only adds a label.
>>> If it doesn't pass the check now, it didn't pass the check before.
>>>
>>> I just realized that the footnote I added before is gone because I
>>> regenerated the patches. The original footnote was something along
>>> the lines of:
>>>
>>> I opted to not change the node names nor the labels as the discussion
>>> had not concluded. The other reason being that people may have scripts
>>> or device tree overlays depending on the existing node names.
>>>
>>> Previously I asked the following but got no response:
>>>
>>>     Is changing this after it has been in some kernel releases OK? Wouldn't
>>>     it be considered a break of sysfs ABI?
>>>
>>>     Also, is there some guideline on how to name the labels? For sunxi we've
>>>     been doing "${vendor}:${color}:${function}" since forever.
>>>
>>>     As far as I can tell, the hardware vendor [1] has no specific uses for
>>>     these two (red and yellow) LEDs designed in. And their GPIO lines are
>>>     simply labeled "DIY" (for the red one) and "YELLOW". So I'm not sure
>>>     if putting "our" interpretations and the default-trigger into the
>>>     label is wise.
>>>
>>>     For reference, the green one has its GPIO line labeled "WORK", and their
>>>     intention from [1] is to have it as some sort of power / activity indicator.
>>>     Hence it is named / labeled "work".
>>>
>>>     As for the node names, I think we can keep it as is for now. It's not
>>>     the preferred form, but there's really no need to change it either.
>>>     And some overlay or script might actually expect that name.
>>>
>>>> make -k ARCH=arm dtbs_check
>>>>
>>>> Could you give a generic guide line/example, so all these changes are
>>>> treated the same way? As if the naming follows the preferred 'led-0' line.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you are asking for.
>>
>> Your nodename just happend to contain 'led' to pass the regex.
>> There are many other names in use.
> 
> Right. So if it passes, what's the problem?
> 
>> 'If' the DT maintainer (=Heiko) decides the get rid of all the warnings
>> for led nodes then that change would require all nodename to be handled
>> to same (=preferred way):
>>
>> Change this:
>>
>> diy_led: diy-led
>> yellow_led: yellow-led
>>
>> Into something like:
>>
>> led_0: led-0
>> led_1: led-1
> 
> As I already said, if the maintainers want to clean this up, I am happy to
> provide patches towards this. That is not the case right now. Furthermore,
> that cleanup is not directly related to what I'm trying to fix in this
> patch, which is, from the original submitter's point of view, incorrect
> triggers are used when the mezzanine board is added.
> 
> Also, DT labels "led_0" and "led_1" are useless. They have no relation to
> what is used in the schematics, which are "work", "diy", and "yellow". The
> board itself doesn't have anything silk-screened on, so on that end the only
> thing to go with is the color.
> 
> So for fixing up the LED node names, we'd probably want the following:
> 
>     diy_led: led-0
>     yellow_led: led-1
>     work_led: led-2

That doesn't look pretty either.
Would like to hear the maintainers view on how to handle other cases
without 'led' like for example 'blue' for mk808.

> 
> Is that what you're asking for?
> 
> 
> ChenYu
> 
>>>
>>> ChenYu
>>>
>>>>>                       label = "red:diy";
>>>>>                       gpios = <&gpio0 RK_PB5 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>                       default-state = "off";
>>>>>                       linux,default-trigger = "mmc1";
>>>>>               };
>>>>>
>>>>> -             yellow-led {
>>>>> +             yellow_led: yellow-led {
>>>>>                       label = "yellow:yellow-led";
>>>>>                       gpios = <&gpio0 RK_PA2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>                       default-state = "off";
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.26.0
>>>>
>>