linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: Add Wilco EC keyboard backlight LEDs support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:23:31 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
Cc:     Nick Crews <ncrews@...omium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        jacek.anaszewski@...il.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Erat <derat@...gle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: Add Wilco EC keyboard backlight LEDs
 support

Hi!

> > > > Yeah, well, we not let the cros_kbd_led_backlight.c use chromeos:: in
> > > > the first place. But it happened. We want all backlights for the
> > > > system keyboard to use common name, and "chromeos" is not really
> > > > suitable for that. "platform" is.
> > >
> > > Pavel, who exactly wants this and why? Looking at today's -next I see:
> > >
> > > dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/linux-next ((next-20190404))$ git grep
> > > "::kbd_backlight" | wc -l
> > > 18
> > > dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/linux-next ((next-20190404))$ git grep
> > > "platform::kbd_backlight" | wc -l
> > > 0
> > >
> > > so there isn't a single instance of "platform::kbd_backlight" and we
> > > definitely not changing existing names.
> >
> > Yeah, we made mistakes in the past. We _don't_ want userspace to have
> > ever growing list of names for userspace to follow.
> >
> > Backlight of internal keyboard is pretty common concept and there
> > should be one name for it.
> 
> It is the *function* that is interesting to userspace, not full name,
> and we have proper standardization there.

Well, if full name is not interesting, as you argue, why do we have
this discussion?
									Pavel

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

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)