From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:34125 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753482Ab0IIG4H (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:56:07 -0400 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34so5014wwb.1 for ; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:56:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Korsgaard To: Hans Verkuil Cc: "Jean-Francois Moine" , "linux-media\@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Walls , eduardo.valentin@nokia.com, "ext Eino-Ville Talvala" , Hans de Goede Subject: Re: [PATCH] Illuminators and status LED controls References: <87fwxkcbat.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20100909080702.1687d29a@tele> <201009090825.52050.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:55:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <201009090825.52050.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> (Hans Verkuil's message of "Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:25:51 +0200") Message-ID: <87aanrcsn9.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-ID: Sender: Mauro Carvalho Chehab >>>>> "Hans" == Hans Verkuil writes: Hi, >> - the status LED should be controlled by the LED interface. Hans> I originally was in favor of controlling these through v4l as Hans> well, but people made some good arguments against that. The main Hans> one being: why would you want to show these as a control? What is Hans> the end user supposed to do with them? It makes little sense. Hans> Frankly, why would you want to expose LEDs at all? Shouldn't this Hans> be completely hidden by the driver? No generic application will Hans> ever do anything with status LEDs anyway. So it should be the Hans> driver that operates them and in that case the LEDs do not need Hans> to be exposed anywhere. It's not that it *HAS* to be exposed - But if we can, then it's nice to do so as it gives flexibility to the user instead of hardcoding policy in the kernel. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard