linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v17 00/17] Multi Color LED Framework

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:30:42 -0600
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
CC:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v17 00/17] Multi Color LED Framework

Greg

On 2/28/20 1:42 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:22:43PM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> On 2/27/20 2:07 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> This is not an accurate statement.  Right now a user can have up to 8
>>> channels to cover all the LEDs defined in the LED core
>>>
>>> And if the led_colors array expands then this array can expand.
>>>
>>> We have no control on how many entries the user will put in their DT so
>>> again this number is completely arbitrary.
>> I believe that some of mechanisms that were devised for the most
>> recent implementation proposal of LED mc class will need
>> to be reused for the array approach. E.g. available_colors bitmask
>> will make the parsing resistant to duplicates.
>>
>> Of course LED multicolor DT node design should be applicable as well
>> to the array approach.
>>
>>>> Writing 3 or 4 or 5 numbers all at once in a single sysfs file to
>>>> represent a single output should be fine.
>>>> thanks,
>> Thank you for making this clear.
>>
>> Effectively, the way to go as I see it now is just moving from
>> colors directory to channel_intensity and channel_names files.
> Wait, we already have an interface for this and you want to create a
> competing one?  Why?  What's wrong with what you have now?
>
> Do you have a pointer to the Documentation/ABI/ entries that you have
> now that you feel do not work well?

Here is the proposal we have been working on for some time.

Series:

https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=427513

ABI Documentation and support code:

https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1186194/

Dan

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h