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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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]+$"

Best regards,
Krzysztof