[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] Move led attributes out of device name and into sysfs attributes, was Re: LED devices
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:46 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:02 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > There were some other opinions voiced including one from the person
> > who started this discussion.
> >
> > So no, the people who write the tools that parse sysfs (like HAL.)
> > don't appreciate this.
> >
> > People who write tools that parse sysfs like shell scripts don't
> > appreciate it either, as I illustrated.
> >From a hal point of view, we don't care if the device name is 'led01' or
> 'light_to_dance_the_fandango' and from a shell point of view it's
> probably best for the latter. I think the point Greg tried to make is
> that it shouldn't matter, and HAL shouldn't export (nor parse) the
> device name as anything sensible.
> > You've yet to give any technical reason why we can't have meaningful
> > busids rather than random numbers. Your entire argument seems to be
> > that its wrong because its a bit different and nobody else does it...
> If it's a trivial name then I think led_thinklight0 is perfectly okay, I
> think Kay was talking more about the attribute vs. name-in-device
> encoding.

I see no problem to use the function name and add an enumeration number
to that name to be able to handle multiple instances with the same
function name. Like pointed out in earlier mail:


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-28 21:17    [W:0.059 / U:13.604 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site