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

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

Date:   Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:07:39 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
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

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:23 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>
> 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?

Because I need to understand why you believe that device name for
kbd_backlight matters, and having wilco::kbd_backlight is a bad idea,
but, for example, having max77650::kbd_backlight is perfectly fine if
somebody decided to wire it in this way.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry