linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1334138713.10826.134.camel@ted>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:05:13 +0100
From:	Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	shuahkhan@...il.com
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [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.

Cheers,

Richard

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/