Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: Clearly mark label property as deprecated

[Jacek Anaszewski]

On 8/20/25 12:37, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Wed Aug 20, 2025 at 10:14 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > On Fri Aug 15, 2025 at 1:00 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 15/08/2025 12:47, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > > > The text description already mentioned the label property was
> > > > > deprecated, but using the 'deprecated' property makes is clearer and
> > > > > more explicit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.yaml | 1 +
> > > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > Please first read previous discussions:
> > >
> > > [I reversed the order of the links so the oldest is first]
> > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221122111124.6828-1-cniedermaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Rob: "They ['function' and 'label'] serve 2 different purposes."
> > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240509110545.49889-1-linux@xxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Krzysztof: "I don't think there was conclusion to make it deprecated on
> > > last attempt"
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > > What I don't understand: Why wasn't the text updated to correct the
> > > incorrect statement about deprecation (that's how I interpret it now)?
> > > Or some other conclusion being made and that that will be reflected in
> > > the text and/or a deprecated property.
> > >
> > > Otherwise the confusion remains and then it's just a matter of time
> > > before a 4th person comes along proposing the same patch.
> > > And possibly even more harmful: people use it incorrectly.
> >
> > Whatever change you want to do here, I expect to address one way or
> > another these previous discussions. If the code is confusing, refine the
> > description. But not in a way which ignored previous feedbacks.
>
> I'm not going to make a change.
>
> I thought I would be making (more) explicit what the binding says.
> Apparently I read/interpreted it incorrectly. What I described above is
> how I currently interpret the *confusion* text/discussion. Is that
> correct? I have no idea. That I'm at least the 3rd person proposing this
> change indicates I'm not the only one who is confused.
>
> IMO it's up to a/the maintainer to make a decision and that should then
> be reflected in the binding, which should fix any confusion.
>
> I hadn't looked at the code yet, but *I*IUC the code should follow the
> binding, not the other way around. That's how I have interpreted
> (mostly your) comments related to various binding patches ever since I
> started actively following upstream(ing) work. Which (again) may be an
> incorrect interpretation.

I think that what we are lacking to move forward is Pavel's response
to Marek's question [0] about elaboration on the subject.
Unless there was a response and I can't find it.

[0] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cb3c3a1e-ec10-1e7b-1b21-3cb250f92ecf@xxxxxxx/#t
--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski