[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e029404c-88f7-4e8a-affa-40d589412e61@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:03:25 +0200
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>,
Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jelle@...aa.nl, jikos@...nel.org,
lee@...nel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
ojeda@...nel.org, onitake@...il.com, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/tuxedo: Add virtual LampArray for TUXEDO
NB04 devices
Am 22.10.24 um 21:15 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
>
>>>>> - interface for setting multiple LEDs at once
>>>>> - interface for setting a range of LEDs at once
>>> How are LEDs ordered? I don't believe range makes much sense.
>> Range would allow for efficiently changing the color of all LEDs. But i agree
>> that this can be considered optional and can be added later.
> Yep, setting all of them makes sense. We should probably provide
> backward-compatible interface for keyboards with single backlight, so
> this would likely be LED class.
>
Good idea, the LED device could also be provided by the illumination subsystem code.
>>>> Personally I really like the idea to just emulate a HID LampArray device
>>>> for this instead or rolling our own API. I believe there need to be
>>>> strong arguments to go with some alternative NIH API and I have not
>>>> heard such arguments yet.
>>> If you don't want "some alternative API", we already have perfectly
>>> working API for 2D arrays of LEDs. I believe I mentioned it before
>>> :-). Senzrohssre.
>> We may have to support 3D arrays of LEDs, so using a simple framebuffer
>> would likely cause trouble.
> Do you have pointer for device that is 3D?
Maybe a PC case with LEDs on each corner.
>
> OpenRGB manages to map keyboard into plane... so what I'd propose is
> this:
>
> Framebuffer
> Information for each pixel:
> present ? (displays with missing pixels are pretty common)
> list of keys related to this pixel
> width, height, length (if we know them)
>
> Pixels map to keys M:N.
>
> Yes, we'll have some number of non-present pixels, but again, I
> believe that's not uncommon due to round screens, etc.
>
> (But I'm fine with other interfaces, as long as they are "normal")
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel
Using an ID-based interface would allow for more flexibility and allow
us to support 3D-arrays.
Thanks,
Armin Wolf
Powered by blists - more mailing lists