[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7292444e-43d8-3561-2835-34b75a650107@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 12:50:43 +0900
From: Milo Kim <woogyom.kim@...il.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
ming.lei@...onical.com, daniel.wagner@...-carit.de, teg@...m.no,
mchehab@....samsung.com, zajec5@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, markivx@...eaurora.org,
stephen.boyd@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tiwai@...e.de, johannes@...solutions.net,
chunkeey@...glemail.com, hauke@...ke-m.de,
jwboyer@...oraproject.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, jslaby@...e.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...capital.net,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, rpurdie@...ys.net,
j.anaszewski@...sung.com, Abhay_Salunke@...l.com,
Julia.Lawall@...6.fr, Gilles.Muller@...6.fr, nicolas.palix@...g.fr,
dhowells@...hat.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] firmware: add DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK() annotation
Hi Luis,
On 12/17/2016 01:14 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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
Phase 1)
- create sysfs in LP5562 and LP8501
- use new sysfs inside the firmware I/F loading callback
- mark the firmware callback as a deprecated interface
Phase 2)
- remove the firmware I/F after all user program fixes the interface
(but the problem is how can we get to know when this is done?)
> Why has no one cried
> after the v4.0 custom fallback mechanism breaking ?
Well, I don't know the reason exactly but my guess is they maybe still
using old kernel.
> How wide spread is this custom userspace ?
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.
I understood it's a kind of troublesome work in terms of the
maintenance. Sorry for that. I hope we have a consensus to resolve it.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Milo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists