| Message ID | 20221226123630.6515-2-pali@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Resend LED patches | expand |
On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Pali Rohár wrote: > Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via > active-low property. > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) Needs a DT Ack (now Cc:ed) > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > index ed26ec19ecbd..418130b29caa 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ properties: > 0x100000, 0x200000, 0x400000, 0x800000, 0x1000000, 0x2000000, 0x4000000, > 0x8000000, 0x10000000, 0x20000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000 ] > > + active-low: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag > + description: > + LED is ON when bit in register is not set > + > offset: > description: > register offset to the register controlling this LED > -- > 2.20.1 >
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via > > active-low property. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > Needs a DT Ack (now Cc:ed) I can't do anything with this set until we have a DT Ack. If you don't receive one soon, I'd suggest resending the set again with all of the DT people on Cc that it should have been sent to in the first place. > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > > index ed26ec19ecbd..418130b29caa 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > > @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ properties: > > 0x100000, 0x200000, 0x400000, 0x800000, 0x1000000, 0x2000000, 0x4000000, > > 0x8000000, 0x10000000, 0x20000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000 ] > > > > + active-low: > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag > > + description: > > + LED is ON when bit in register is not set > > + > > offset: > > description: > > register offset to the register controlling this LED > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > > > -- > Lee Jones [李琼斯]
On Thursday 23 February 2023 14:22:52 Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via > > > active-low property. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > Needs a DT Ack (now Cc:ed) > > I can't do anything with this set until we have a DT Ack. > > If you don't receive one soon, I'd suggest resending the set again with > all of the DT people on Cc that it should have been sent to in the first > place. (Re)Sending one email multiple times is against email etiquette, moreover it is spam technique and reason for marking sender on the blacklist. Moreover I have already sent it more than one time. DT people are known to not respond to patches and pull requests and I have no motivation to send reminder emails for them for more than half of year. So I would suggest to not send emails to people who just do not want to receive or read emails. It is logical reaction. This patch is here for more than 6 months, so I do not see reason why to wait for Godot. Rather move forward than stepping at the same position. > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > > > index ed26ec19ecbd..418130b29caa 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml > > > @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ properties: > > > 0x100000, 0x200000, 0x400000, 0x800000, 0x1000000, 0x2000000, 0x4000000, > > > 0x8000000, 0x10000000, 0x20000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000 ] > > > > > > + active-low: > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag > > > + description: > > > + LED is ON when bit in register is not set > > > + > > > offset: > > > description: > > > register offset to the register controlling this LED > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 > > > > > > > -- > > Lee Jones [李琼斯] > > -- > Lee Jones [李琼斯]
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:48 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2023 14:22:52 Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > > Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via > > > > active-low property. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> > > > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > Needs a DT Ack (now Cc:ed) > > > > I can't do anything with this set until we have a DT Ack. > > > > If you don't receive one soon, I'd suggest resending the set again with > > all of the DT people on Cc that it should have been sent to in the first > > place. > > (Re)Sending one email multiple times is against email etiquette, > moreover it is spam technique and reason for marking sender on the > blacklist. No problem on the kernel mailing lists actually, we love to mail bomb each other here. Yeah maybe we are a bit weird :/ > Moreover I have already sent it more than one time. DT people are known > to not respond to patches and pull requests and I have no motivation to > send reminder emails for them for more than half of year. > > So I would suggest to not send emails to people who just do not want to > receive or read emails. It is logical reaction. > > This patch is here for more than 6 months, so I do not see reason why to > wait for Godot. Rather move forward than stepping at the same position. I understand that it is annoying. In my experience Krzysztof and Rob (now added on To) are usually quite responsive and helpful, so something must have made them miss it I think. As subsystem maintainer, if the DT reviewers haven't said anything in ~2 weeks I tend to sanity check the binding as best I can and then merge it. The bigger and more complex it is the more hesitant I get to do this... Yours, Linus Walleij
On 23/02/2023 21:59, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:48 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote: >> On Thursday 23 February 2023 14:22:52 Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Lee Jones wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Pali Rohár wrote: >>>> >>>>> Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via >>>>> active-low property. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> Needs a DT Ack (now Cc:ed) >>> >>> I can't do anything with this set until we have a DT Ack. >>> >>> If you don't receive one soon, I'd suggest resending the set again with >>> all of the DT people on Cc that it should have been sent to in the first >>> place. >> >> (Re)Sending one email multiple times is against email etiquette, >> moreover it is spam technique and reason for marking sender on the >> blacklist. > > No problem on the kernel mailing lists actually, we love to mail > bomb each other here. Yeah maybe we are a bit weird :/ > >> Moreover I have already sent it more than one time. DT people are known >> to not respond to patches and pull requests and I have no motivation to >> send reminder emails for them for more than half of year. Is this a joke? You got here response within one day! Sent: 18th of August Reviewed-by: 19th of August https://lore.kernel.org/all/f635d5a7-6817-cd62-e395-63e346775716@linaro.org/ You ignored the tag and then ignored the process and not Cc'ed us. Yet you complain that someone did not respond to your emails. Really? >> >> So I would suggest to not send emails to people who just do not want to >> receive or read emails. It is logical reaction. >> >> This patch is here for more than 6 months, so I do not see reason why to >> wait for Godot. Rather move forward than stepping at the same position. > > I understand that it is annoying. > > In my experience Krzysztof and Rob (now added on To) are usually > quite responsive and helpful, so something must have made them > miss it I think. > > As subsystem maintainer, if the DT reviewers haven't said anything > in ~2 weeks I tend to sanity check the binding as best I can and then > merge it. The bigger and more complex it is the more hesitant I get to > do this... Yeah... this patch was never sent to us, thus regardless how hard we work, it would be quite difficult to answer emails which we never received. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml index ed26ec19ecbd..418130b29caa 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ properties: 0x100000, 0x200000, 0x400000, 0x800000, 0x1000000, 0x2000000, 0x4000000, 0x8000000, 0x10000000, 0x20000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000 ] + active-low: + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag + description: + LED is ON when bit in register is not set + offset: description: register offset to the register controlling this LED