Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation | From | Richard Purdie <> | Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:05:13 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:31 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 14:24 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > Having looked at the code and read through the thread and Andrew's patch > > review, I'm left wondering why you didn't add a new trigger for this > > functionality? > > By new trigger do you mean, adding another interface to struct > led_trigger. My first patch to solve this use-case indeed did that. I > still happen to have a copy of that patch. It would require more changes > to the infrastructure than this approach, however it is more explicit > and clear. > > static struct led_trigger gpio_led_trigger = { > .name = "gpio", > + .activate_once = NULL, > .activate = gpio_trig_activate, > .deactivate = gpio_trig_deactivate, > };
No, I did not mean adding another interface. Why can't we have a trigger which just triggers once and then stops? It would be similar to the timer trigger but with a different name and way of operating.
> > Dimity raises some valid questions about the force-feedback framework in > > the input system too. We need to make a decision about where phone > > vibration framework belongs and then stick to that. You can argue this > > to either subsystem, neither "led" or "input" is a obvious description > > of phone vibration at a first glance! > > force-feedback framework is another alternative. Making a decision is > great, what are the next steps to get closer to making a call?
I'd first like to understand why this couldn't be a separate trigger, then we can understand the alternatives we're comparing.
Cheers,
Richard
| |