From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Purdie Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: extend EV_LED Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1171582564.5839.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1171580944.5839.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070215232438.GB4176@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070215232438.GB4176@elf.ucw.cz> Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Pavel Machek Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=E9meth_M=E1rton?= , Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 00:24 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > The led framework is generic. If you can write a function to turn it > > on/off you can drive it with the LED framework. > > Even if that function is slow and sleeps? The LED class itself can call in interrupt context so you'd have to schedule a workqueue if you need to sleep. > > One way I've come up with is adds capability to the class to have LED > > specific triggers and you can then expose these hardware capabilities as > > an extra trigger specific to the LED. > > > > Another proposal more specific to this use case was to have some > > information behind the scenes which the software timer based trigger > > could use to turn on the "hardware acceleration" if present and capable > > of the requested mode. This might just need a function pointer in the > > core so could be quite neat. > > I do not think we want to permit this led to run in "not accelerated" > mode. I believe i8042 accesses are pretty expensive. Which means they probably won't work well with the standard triggers. Not something we can do much about though... > > Nether patch exists yet. > > Yep, interested party should create one of them :-). (And I'd prefer > the first one, due to i8042 slowness). Right, patches welcome :) Cheers, Richard