lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] firmware: add DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK() annotation
Hi!

> >>> Milo if sysfs is used can't the old userspace be mapped to use the new
> >>> sysfs interface through a wrapper of some sort ? What exactly would be
> >>> needed to ensure old userspace will not break?
> >>
> >> LP5521 and LP5523 have two ways to load hex code from the userspace - the
> >> sysfs and firmware I/F. So user program supports both interfaces. Even if
> >> the firmware I/F is not available, user can still run LED effect through the
> >> sysfs.
> >>
> >> However, LP5562 and LP8501 support only single way which is the firmware
> >> I/F. So user-space program for LP5562/8501 should be modified if lp55xx
> >> removes the interface. My idea is
> >
> > Actually... it would be good to have some reasonable interface for RGB
> > LEDs. This way, we need separate "firmware" for each LED
> > controller. It would be good to have common format for LED effects.
>
> We still haven't tried trigger approach discussed over half a year ago.
> If we used firmware approach we would still have to overcome the problem
> of defining the LED class drivers affected by the firmware program.

The firmware approach is in the tree today :-(.

> >> Device manufactures in Asia & North America requested lp55xx drivers, but I
> >> don't know how many vendors uses the firmware I/F. Some vendors embeds the
> >> binary code inside the driver instead of using user-program.
> >
> > Nokia N900 uses lp55xx, and I have custom scripts interfacing sysfs.
> >
> > Maemo uses the LEDs, too, but maemo is not open source.
> >
> > So no, I don't think there's anything important that could be broken.
>
> We can't guarantee that. Is there any problem in just using the
> currently introduced DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK() in
> drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c?

Well, it would be good to get rid of the custom fallback
functionality. And no, we don't need to "guarantee" that. Removing
obscure functionality noone uses is far game... providing noone
complains ;-).

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-21 19:49    [W:0.238 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site