[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5h4kmxmdqc.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:08:27 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Udo van den Heuvel <udovdh@...all.nl>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
moderated for non-subscribers <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: disabling CONFIG_LED_CLASS (SND_HDA_CODEC_REALTEK)
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:54:59 +0200,
Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > >>> I.e.: it looks like I will lose some funcionality when I disable
> > >>> SND_HDA_CODEC_REALTEK.
> > >>
> > >> OK. At present you can't have it both ways, i.e., SND_HDA_CODEC_REALTEK
> > >> with no LEDS. That driver apparently wants LEDS.
> > >
> > > Thanks but why have I gone for years without LEDS?
> > > I do not need LEDS, I do not want LEDS, I do not have LEDS (that are
> > > visible, usable, etc).
> > >
> > > Please make this selectable instead of forcing more bulk into my
> >> kernel.
>
> LED core is not that big, and this avoided some rather "interesting"
> hacks IIRC. If Udo wants more config complexity, lets first make him
> measure the benefits, second submit a patch.
>
> But I'd suggest to just live with it.
>
> And yes, we should probably get rid of "CONFIG_NEW_LEDS" symbol. That
> one is actually useless.
IIRC, this was needed for the reverse selection of CONFIG_LEDS_CLASS
and co. But if it's really useless, I'll happily delete it.
thanks,
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists