[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1e47fd1d-53e0-75c7-0c25-42f4c6ccd818@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:46:44 +0100
From: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Milo Kim <woogyom.kim@...il.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
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
On 12/19/2016 09:08 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> 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
>
> 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.
>> 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 1a)
>
> stick WARN_ON() in the firmware callback.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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?
--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
Powered by blists - more mailing lists