Re: [PATCH v1 02/11] DT: Add documentation for the mfd Maxim max77693

[Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>]

Hi Jacek,

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:54:11AM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
> 
> On 03/21/2015 11:49 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >Hi Jacek,
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:03:22PM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> >>+Optional properties of the LED child node:
> >>+- label : see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt
> >
> >I'm still not comfortable using the label field as-is as the entity name in
> >the later patches, there's one important problem: it is not guaranteed to be
> >unique in the system.
> 
> I don't use it as-is in my patches. For max77603-led the i2c adapter id
> and client address is added to it, and for aat1290 there is '_n' suffix
> added. Nonetheless I didn't notice that the patch [1] was already
> merged. It checks if a LED class device with given name isn't already
> registered and adds a '_n" suffix if there was any. If it was exported
> I could use it in the leds-aat1290 driver and avoid depending on the
> static variable.
> 
> Whereas for I2C devices the problem doesn't exist (it is guaranteed that
> no more than one I2C client with an address can be present on the
> same bus), for devices driven through GPIOs we haven't stable unique
> identifier.
> 
> I thought that we agreed on #v4l about adding numerical postfixes
> in case of such devices.
> 
> >Do you think this could be added to
> >Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt, with perhaps enforcing it
> >in the LED framework? Bryan, what do you think?
> 
> The patch [1] seems to address the issue.

Replied to that, you're cc'd.

For this patch:

Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>

-- 
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi	XMPP: sailus@retiisi.org.uk