Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the leds-lj tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Florian,

On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 08:47:07 +0100 Florian Eckert <fe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> thanks for your hint
> 
> On 2024-01-05 07:33, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the leds-lj tree, today's linux-next build (htmldocs)
> > produced this warning:
> > 
> > Warning: /sys/class/leds/<led>/rx is defined 2 times:
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-led-trigger-tty:7
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-led-trigger-netdev:49
> > Warning: /sys/class/leds/<led>/tx is defined 2 times:
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-led-trigger-tty:15
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-led-trigger-netdev:34  
> 
> The behavior of the tty trigger can be controlled via the Rx and Tx file.
> If a value is set in Rx or Tx, the LED flashes when data is transmitted in
> this direction. The same behavior is used for the netdev trigger.
> I have therefore used the same pattern for the new tty trigger as well.
> 
> I didn't know that the names have to be unique!
> 
> I'm a bit at a loss as to what to do now. Should I put a prefix "tty_"
> in front of the names so that we have "tty_rx", "tty_tx"?
> 
> If we do it this way, however, the general question arises as to whether
> we do have to use a prefix everywhere! If new triggers are added, then the
> names for a config file are already used up and anyone who then wants to use
> the same name for an other trigger with the same config file because it describe
> the same function must then work with a prefix!

I think this is only a problem with the documentation system, not the
actual sysfs file naming.  Maybe just adding a uniquifying bit to the
"<led>" part will solve it.  Or maybe we need the tooling to be taught
about placeholders in sysfs names (or maybe there is already a way).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpD3MR51pWE6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature