[PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rafał Miłecki]

From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>

The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
1. led-power-white
2. led-power-blue

Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
 patternProperties:
   # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
   # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
-  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
+  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":
     type: object
 
     $ref: common.yaml#
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Marek Behun]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:00:25 +0100
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> 
> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
> was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
> 1. led-power-white
> 2. led-power-blue
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
>  patternProperties:
>    # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
>    # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":

Why not use +, like everywhere else?
  "(^led-[0-9a-f]+$|led)"

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 12.03.2021 08:44, Marek Behun wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:00:25 +0100
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>
>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
>> was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
>> 1. led-power-white
>> 2. led-power-blue
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
>>   patternProperties:
>>     # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
>>     # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
>> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
>> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":
> 
> Why not use +, like everywhere else?
>    "(^led-[0-9a-f]+$|led)"

1. Your regex doesn't allow dashes. I described that in commit message.
2. If I use one range and +, that will allow unwanted names like "led--power"

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Marek Behun]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:52:16 +0100
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12.03.2021 08:44, Marek Behun wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:00:25 +0100
> > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>
> >> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
> >> was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
> >> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
> >> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
> >> 1. led-power-white
> >> 2. led-power-blue
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >> ---
> >>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
> >>   patternProperties:
> >>     # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
> >>     # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
> >> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
> >> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":  
> > 
> > Why not use +, like everywhere else?
> >    "(^led-[0-9a-f]+$|led)"  
> 
> 1. Your regex doesn't allow dashes. I described that in commit message.

Ah, I confess I did not read the commit message. My fault.

> 2. If I use one range and +, that will allow unwanted names like "led--power"

But this can happen anyway. Your regex will match for example
"led-deaf------beef".

Moreover you give as an example names
  led-power-white
  led-power-blue
but the regex only allows hexadecimal characters, ie
  led-dead-beef
  led-1f-3

The idea is that the string after "led-" is a hexadecimal address.
Names like
  led-power-white
shouldn't be used, as far as I understand.

Marek

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 12.03.2021 09:23, Marek Behun wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:52:16 +0100
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12.03.2021 08:44, Marek Behun wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:00:25 +0100
>>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
>>>> was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
>>>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
>>>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
>>>> 1. led-power-white
>>>> 2. led-power-blue
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>>>> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
>>>>    patternProperties:
>>>>      # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
>>>>      # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
>>>> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
>>>> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":
>>>
>>> Why not use +, like everywhere else?
>>>     "(^led-[0-9a-f]+$|led)"
>>
>> 1. Your regex doesn't allow dashes. I described that in commit message.
> 
> Ah, I confess I did not read the commit message. My fault.
> 
>> 2. If I use one range and +, that will allow unwanted names like "led--power"
> 
> But this can happen anyway. Your regex will match for example
> "led-deaf------beef".

You're right. I probably was overthinking that ;)


> Moreover you give as an example names
>    led-power-white
>    led-power-blue
> but the regex only allows hexadecimal characters, ie
>    led-dead-beef
>    led-1f-3
> 
> The idea is that the string after "led-" is a hexadecimal address.
> Names like
>    led-power-white
> shouldn't be used, as far as I understand.

Oops!
1. My regex was meant to be [0-9][a-z-][0-9][a-z-]+
2. I totally missed that nodename should contain hex num and not a name

My patch is based on bad binding understanding.


So as I understand it now, the point of led hex number is to enumerate
nodes. That way we avoid:
ERROR (duplicate_node_names): /leds/led: Duplicate node name


I'm just wondering if there is some cleaner solution than using those
led-0, led-1, led-2, led-3, led-4 (...) names.

Would that be acceptable to use address with GPIO number? Example:

leds {
	compatible = "gpio-leds";
	led@6 {
		gpios = <&mpc8572 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
		color = <LED_COLOR_ID_RED>;
	};
	led@7 {
		gpios = <&mpc8572 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
		color = <LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN>;
	};
};

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Marek Behun]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:12:26 +0100
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12.03.2021 09:23, Marek Behun wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:52:16 +0100
> > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 12.03.2021 08:44, Marek Behun wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:00:25 +0100
> >>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>>>
> >>>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
> >>>> was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
> >>>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
> >>>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
> >>>> 1. led-power-white
> >>>> 2. led-power-blue
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
> >>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >>>> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> >>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
> >>>>    patternProperties:
> >>>>      # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
> >>>>      # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
> >>>> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
> >>>> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":  
> >>>
> >>> Why not use +, like everywhere else?
> >>>     "(^led-[0-9a-f]+$|led)"  
> >>
> >> 1. Your regex doesn't allow dashes. I described that in commit message.  
> > 
> > Ah, I confess I did not read the commit message. My fault.
> >   
> >> 2. If I use one range and +, that will allow unwanted names like "led--power"  
> > 
> > But this can happen anyway. Your regex will match for example
> > "led-deaf------beef".  
> 
> You're right. I probably was overthinking that ;)
> 
> 
> > Moreover you give as an example names
> >    led-power-white
> >    led-power-blue
> > but the regex only allows hexadecimal characters, ie
> >    led-dead-beef
> >    led-1f-3
> > 
> > The idea is that the string after "led-" is a hexadecimal address.
> > Names like
> >    led-power-white
> > shouldn't be used, as far as I understand.  
> 
> Oops!
> 1. My regex was meant to be [0-9][a-z-][0-9][a-z-]+
> 2. I totally missed that nodename should contain hex num and not a name
> 
> My patch is based on bad binding understanding.
> 
> 
> So as I understand it now, the point of led hex number is to enumerate
> nodes. That way we avoid:
> ERROR (duplicate_node_names): /leds/led: Duplicate node name
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering if there is some cleaner solution than using those
> led-0, led-1, led-2, led-3, led-4 (...) names.
> 
> Would that be acceptable to use address with GPIO number? Example:
> 
> leds {
> 	compatible = "gpio-leds";
> 	led@6 {
> 		gpios = <&mpc8572 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> 		color = <LED_COLOR_ID_RED>;
> 	};
> 	led@7 {
> 		gpios = <&mpc8572 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> 		color = <LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN>;
> 	};
> };

I don't know. This is a question for Rob Herring.
But why is led-0, led-1, led-2 not good enough?
You can still define function via the function property:
 led-7 {
   gpios = <&mpc8572 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
   color = <LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN>;
   function = LED_FUNCTION_POWER;
 };

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rafał Miłecki]

[Rob: please kindly comment on nodes numbering]

On 12.03.2021 10:26, Marek Behun wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:12:26 +0100
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12.03.2021 09:23, Marek Behun wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:52:16 +0100
>>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On 12.03.2021 08:44, Marek Behun wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:00:25 +0100
>>>>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
>>>>>> was most likely just an overlook. Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
>>>>>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
>>>>>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
>>>>>> 1. led-power-white
>>>>>> 2. led-power-blue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>>>>>> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
>>>>>>     patternProperties:
>>>>>>       # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
>>>>>>       # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
>>>>>> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
>>>>>> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not use +, like everywhere else?
>>>>>      "(^led-[0-9a-f]+$|led)"
>>>>
>>>> 1. Your regex doesn't allow dashes. I described that in commit message.
>>>
>>> Ah, I confess I did not read the commit message. My fault.
>>>    
>>>> 2. If I use one range and +, that will allow unwanted names like "led--power"
>>>
>>> But this can happen anyway. Your regex will match for example
>>> "led-deaf------beef".
>>
>> You're right. I probably was overthinking that ;)
>>
>>
>>> Moreover you give as an example names
>>>     led-power-white
>>>     led-power-blue
>>> but the regex only allows hexadecimal characters, ie
>>>     led-dead-beef
>>>     led-1f-3
>>>
>>> The idea is that the string after "led-" is a hexadecimal address.
>>> Names like
>>>     led-power-white
>>> shouldn't be used, as far as I understand.
>>
>> Oops!
>> 1. My regex was meant to be [0-9][a-z-][0-9][a-z-]+
>> 2. I totally missed that nodename should contain hex num and not a name
>>
>> My patch is based on bad binding understanding.
>>
>>
>> So as I understand it now, the point of led hex number is to enumerate
>> nodes. That way we avoid:
>> ERROR (duplicate_node_names): /leds/led: Duplicate node name
>>
>>
>> I'm just wondering if there is some cleaner solution than using those
>> led-0, led-1, led-2, led-3, led-4 (...) names.
>>
>> Would that be acceptable to use address with GPIO number? Example:
>>
>> leds {
>> 	compatible = "gpio-leds";
>> 	led@6 {
>> 		gpios = <&mpc8572 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> 		color = <LED_COLOR_ID_RED>;
>> 	};
>> 	led@7 {
>> 		gpios = <&mpc8572 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> 		color = <LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN>;
>> 	};
>> };
> 
> I don't know. This is a question for Rob Herring.
> But why is led-0, led-1, led-2 not good enough?
> You can still define function via the function property:
>   led-7 {
>     gpios = <&mpc8572 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>     color = <LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN>;
>     function = LED_FUNCTION_POWER;
>   };

1. I found is a bit unnatural
2. Inserting/removing single LED may result in renaming nodes

Nothing really serious, I'm just wondering if that could be slightly improved.

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:00:25AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> 
> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
> was most likely just an overlook. 

Indeed.

> Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
> 1. led-power-white
> 2. led-power-blue

No, node names are supposed to be generic and reflect the class of 
device.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> index 7ad2baeda0b0..ae46a43e480f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-gpio.yaml
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ properties:
>  patternProperties:
>    # The first form is preferred, but fall back to just 'led' anywhere in the
>    # node name to at least catch some child nodes.
> -  "(^led-[0-9a-f]$|led)":
> +  "(^led-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f-]*$|led)":
>      type: object
>  
>      $ref: common.yaml#
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 16.03.2021 23:31, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:00:25AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>
>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
>> was most likely just an overlook.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
>> 1. led-power-white
>> 2. led-power-blue
> 
> No, node names are supposed to be generic and reflect the class of
> device.

There was some extra discussion on this patch that has ended up with a question about numbering nodes.

Current binding assumes that nodes should be numbered with independent suffix numbers like:
led-0 { };
led-1 { };
led-2 { };

Do you think this could / should be improved somehow?

One option I was thinking about was using:
led@0 { };
led@5 { };
where numbers ("0", "5") should match GPIO numbers.

Is that a valid solution and does it improve things to make it worth it?

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:25 PM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> wrote:
>
> On 16.03.2021 23:31, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:00:25AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>
> >> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
> >> was most likely just an overlook.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >> Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
> >> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
> >> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
> >> 1. led-power-white
> >> 2. led-power-blue
> >
> > No, node names are supposed to be generic and reflect the class of
> > device.
>
> There was some extra discussion on this patch that has ended up with a question about numbering nodes.
>
> Current binding assumes that nodes should be numbered with independent suffix numbers like:
> led-0 { };
> led-1 { };
> led-2 { };
>
> Do you think this could / should be improved somehow?

No, we have other ways for meaningful names (label, color, function, etc.).

> One option I was thinking about was using:
> led@0 { };
> led@5 { };
> where numbers ("0", "5") should match GPIO numbers.
>
> Is that a valid solution and does it improve things to make it worth it?

What if you have <gpioa 1> and <gpiob 1>?

The cells in a consumer for a provider are opaque to the consumer.

Rob

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: leds-gpio: fix & extend node regex

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 23.03.2021 23:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:25 PM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> wrote:
>>
>> On 16.03.2021 23:31, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:00:25AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> The old regex allowed only 1 character to follow the "led-" prefix which
>>>> was most likely just an overlook.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>>> Fix it and while at it allow dashes in
>>>> node names. It allows more meaningful names and it helpful e.g. when
>>>> having the same function name with 2 different colors. For example:
>>>> 1. led-power-white
>>>> 2. led-power-blue
>>>
>>> No, node names are supposed to be generic and reflect the class of
>>> device.
>>
>> There was some extra discussion on this patch that has ended up with a question about numbering nodes.
>>
>> Current binding assumes that nodes should be numbered with independent suffix numbers like:
>> led-0 { };
>> led-1 { };
>> led-2 { };
>>
>> Do you think this could / should be improved somehow?
> 
> No, we have other ways for meaningful names (label, color, function, etc.).
> 
>> One option I was thinking about was using:
>> led@0 { };
>> led@5 { };
>> where numbers ("0", "5") should match GPIO numbers.
>>
>> Is that a valid solution and does it improve things to make it worth it?
> 
> What if you have <gpioa 1> and <gpiob 1>?
> 
> The cells in a consumer for a provider are opaque to the consumer.

Thanks a lot for helping me understand that, it make sense ofc.