From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: New sysfs interface for privacy screens Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 13:04:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20191006110455.GC24605@amd> References: <20191002094650.3fc06a85@lwn.net> <87muei9r7i.fsf@intel.com> <20191003102254.dmwl6qimdca3dbrv@holly.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zCKi3GIZzVBPywwA" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191003102254.dmwl6qimdca3dbrv@holly.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Jani Nikula , Jonathan Corbet , Mat King , rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Ross Zwisler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Jingoo Han , Rajat Jain , Lee Jones , Alexander Schremmer , Andy Shevchenko List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --zCKi3GIZzVBPywwA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > > >> I have been looking into adding Linux support for electronic privacy > > >> screens which is a feature on some new laptops which is built into t= he > > >> display and allows users to turn it on instead of needing to use a > > >> physical privacy filter. In discussions with my colleagues the idea = of > > >> using either /sys/class/backlight or /sys/class/leds but this new > > >> feature does not seem to quite fit into either of those classes. > > > > > > FWIW, it seems that you're not alone in this; 5.4 got some support for > > > such screens if I understand things correctly: > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/= commit/?id=3D110ea1d833ad > >=20 > > Oh, I didn't realize it got merged already, I thought this was > > related... > >=20 > > So we've already replicated the backlight sysfs interface problem for > > privacy screens. :( >=20 > I guess... although the Thinkpad code hasn't added any standard > interfaces (no other laptop should be placing controls for a privacy > screen in /proc/acpi/ibm/... ). Maybe its not too late. There's new interface for controlling privacyguard... but perhaps we need better solution than what went in 5.4. Perhaps it should be reconsidered? Best regards, Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --zCKi3GIZzVBPywwA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAl2ZylcACgkQMOfwapXb+vIvLwCgv8pM8435FkksDHNB1TjTxnow Zm8AoKrwhCDI1rdvOj6Y2H8UU21KaV9E =xgty -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zCKi3GIZzVBPywwA--