[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation
    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.



     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-11 12:07    [W:0.021 / U:38.500 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site