[RFC PATCH] ath79: remove model name from LED labels

[Adrian Schmutzler]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces at lists.openwrt.org]
> On Behalf Of Piotr Dymacz
> Sent: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 14:23
> To: Felix Fietkau <nbd at nbd.name>; Adrian Schmutzler
> <mail at adrianschmutzler.de>; openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ath79: remove model name from LED labels
> 
> Hi Felix, Adrian,
> 
> On 30.09.2020 13:53, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-09-30 13:43, Adrian Schmutzler wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-
> bounces at lists.openwrt.org]
> >>> On Behalf Of Adrian Schmutzler
> >>> Sent: Sonntag, 27. September 2020 23:55
> >>> To: openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> >>> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] ath79: remove model name from LED labels
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> since there doesn't seem to be any interest in the subject initially, I'd also
> be interested if there are any general objections towards dropping
> "devicename" and using "color:function" scheme on LEDs.
> >>
> >> I'd actually be quite happy to get rid of this obstacle that annoyed me
> consistently throughout my involvement with OpenWrt.
> > The devicename in the LEDs has also annoyed me often enough. No idea
> > why it was added in the first place.
> 
> It comes from upstream (2006-2008):
> 
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/75c1d31d9ea71025b73430c696b7
> 27e8aa15872d
> 
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/6c152beefbf90579d21afc4f7e075
> b1f801f9a75
> 
> > I think getting rid of it is a really good idea.
> 
> It doesn't bring us closer to the current upstream approach (functions and
> colors IDs) but should make things easier for contributors and reviewers.

Actually, it does, since the new upstream approach does not include a devicename in its legacy meaning (i.e. the name of the "whole" device). Instead, they _plan_ to use the name of internal devices (e.g. phy0) for the first part of the LED name when applicable (e.g. wlan0:green:activity for the WiFi 2.4g LED). The LEDs "assigned" to the whole device itself will then have only two parts, e.g. "green:power", and that's exactly what I want to do now anyway.

While we cannot use the upstream approach at the moment as it's not ready, the removal of devicename seems a good step for now, and as I understand it it's still a step into the right direction.

Thanks for your feedback.

Best

Adrian

Further reading:
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/3437
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg16592.html
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg16594.html

> 
> --
> Cheers,
> Piotr
> 
> >
> > - Felix
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openwrt-devel mailing list
> > openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20200930/6e7b806c/attachment-0001.sig>