linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC v10 02/19] Documentation: leds: Add description of LED Flash class extension

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: <20150109174058.GC18076@amd>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:40:58 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
	cooloney@...il.com, rpurdie@...ys.net, sakari.ailus@....fi,
	s.nawrocki@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v10 02/19] Documentation: leds: Add description of
 LED Flash class extension

Hi!

> The documentation being added contains overall description of the
> LED Flash Class and the related sysfs attributes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
> Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>
> Cc: Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>

> +In order to enable support for flash LEDs CONFIG_LEDS_CLASS_FLASH symbol
> +must be defined in the kernel config. A flash LED driver must register
> +in the LED subsystem with led_classdev_flash_register function to gain flash
> +related capabilities.
> +
> +There are flash LED devices which can control more than one LED and allow for
> +strobing the sub-leds synchronously. A LED will be strobed synchronously with
> +the one whose identifier is written to the flash_sync_strobe sysfs attribute.
> +The list of available sub-led identifiers can be read from the

sub-LED?

> +	- flash_fault - bitmask of flash faults that may have occurred
> +			possible flags are:
> +		* 0x01 - flash controller voltage to the flash LED has exceeded
> +			 the limit specific to the flash controller
> +		* 0x02 - the flash strobe was still on when the timeout set by
> +			 the user has expired; not all flash controllers may
> +			 set this in all such conditions
> +		* 0x04 - the flash controller has overheated
> +		* 0x08 - the short circuit protection of the flash controller
> +			 has been triggered
> +		* 0x10 - current in the LED power supply has exceeded the limit
> +			 specific to the flash controller
> +		* 0x20 - the flash controller has detected a short or open
> +			 circuit condition on the indicator LED
> +		* 0x40 - flash controller voltage to the flash LED has been
> +			 below the minimum limit specific to the flash
> +		* 0x80 - the input voltage of the flash controller is below
> +			 the limit under which strobing the flash at full
> +			 current will not be possible. The condition persists
> +			 until this flag is no longer set
> +		* 0x100 - the temperature of the LED has exceeded its allowed
> +			  upper limit

Did not everyone agree that text strings are preferable to bitmasks?

									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/