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

[Uday Kiran]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:39 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.

Sorry for the delayed response, Krzysztof.

You are right that the binding text and the driver do not mandate node names.
However, the existing device tree source use names like blue-power,
red-sata0, etc.:

arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/kirkwood-netxbig.dtsi

Also, the driver uses the node name as a fallback LED label when the label
property is absent.

drivers/leds/leds-netxbig.c, lines 585-588.

If we enforce ^led-[a-z0-9]+$ in the schema, the existing DTS file would fail
validation, and renaming the nodes would change the userspace-visible
LED names.

Regards,
Udaya Kiran Challa