Hi! > > > for leds-gpio you can use the properties 'function' and 'color' in the > > > devicetree node and omit 'label', the label is constructed > > > automatically. This is a common feature supposed to be working for all > > > LED drivers. However it did not yet work for the 'leds-pwm' driver. > > > This series fixes the driver and takes the opportunity to update the > > > dt-bindings accordingly. > > > > > > v1: based on v5.9-rc2, backport on v5.4.59 tested and working > > > > > > v2: based on v5.9-rc3, added the dt-bindings update patch > > > > > > Greets > > > Alex > > > > > > Alexander Dahl (2): > > > leds: pwm: Allow automatic labels for DT based devices > > > dt-bindings: leds: Convert pwm to yaml > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 9 +- > > > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml > > > > For both patches: > > > > Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski > > I'd like to make a v3 and change the license of the .yaml file to "(GPL-2.0- > only OR BSD-2-Clause)" as suggested by checkpatch and [1]. Can I keep your > Acked-by for that? > > Besides: those suggestions are obviously valid for new bindings. What about > old bindings (.txt), which had no explicit SPDX tag or license note before? > What license would apply there? Is the .yaml file technically new, when it > was mostly just converted from .txt? If it is based on previous .txt binding, you have to respect previous author's license. That probably means GPL-2.0 only. Alternatively, you can contact original author(s) to get permission to relicense under (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html