[net-next PATCH v5 10/15] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-controller: Document support for LEDs node

[Christian Marangi]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > Are specific ethernet controllers allowed to add their own properties in 
> > > led nodes? If so, this doesn't work. As-is, this allows any other 
> > > properties. You need 'unevaluatedProperties: false' here to prevent 
> > > that. But then no one can add properties. If you want to support that, 
> > > then you need this to be a separate schema that devices can optionally 
> > > include if they don't extend the properties, and then devices that 
> > > extend the binding would essentially have the above with:
> > > 
> > > $ref: /schemas/leds/common.yaml#
> > > unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > properties:
> > >   a-custom-device-prop: ...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you wanted to define both common ethernet LED properties and 
> > > device specific properties, then you'd need to replace leds/common.yaml 
> > > above  with the ethernet one.
> > > 
> > > This is all the same reasons the DSA/switch stuff and graph bindings are 
> > > structured the way they are.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Rob, thanks for the review/questions.
> > 
> > The idea of all of this is to keep leds node as standard as possible.
> > It was asked to add unevaluatedProperties: False but I didn't understood
> > it was needed also for the led nodes.
> > 
> > leds/common.yaml have additionalProperties set to true but I guess that
> > is not OK for the final schema and we need something more specific.
> > 
> > Looking at the common.yaml schema reg binding is missing so an
> > additional schema is needed.
> > 
> > Reg is needed for ethernet LEDs and PHY but I think we should also permit
> > to skip that if the device actually have just one LED. (if this wouldn't
> > complicate the implementation. Maybe some hints from Andrew about this
> > decision?)
> 
> I would make reg mandatory.
>

Ok will add a new schema and change the regex.

> We should not encourage additional properties, but i also think we
> cannot block it.
> 
> The problem we have is that there is absolutely no standardisation
> here. Vendors are free to do whatever they want, and they do. So i
> would not be too surprised if some vendor properties are needed
> eventually.
>

Think that will come later with defining a more specific schema. But I
honestly think most of the special implementation will be handled to the
driver internally and not with special binding in DT.

-- 
	Ansuel