From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: Add Wilco EC keyboard backlight LEDs support Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:11:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20190404201103.GE29984@amd> References: <20190308203801.57920-1-ncrews@chromium.org> <20190308210843.GA16125@amd> <20190404112415.GB18653@amd> <20190404190326.GC27340@amd> <20190404192331.GB29984@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Oiv9uiLrevHtW1RS" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Nick Crews , Enric Balletbo i Serra , Benson Leung , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com, linux-kernel , Duncan Laurie , Daniel Erat , Guenter Roeck List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org --Oiv9uiLrevHtW1RS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu 2019-04-04 13:07:39, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:23 PM Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, we not let the cros_kbd_led_backlight.c use chromeo= s:: in > > > > > > the first place. But it happened. We want all backlights for the > > > > > > system keyboard to use common name, and "chromeos" is not really > > > > > > suitable for that. "platform" is. > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, who exactly wants this and why? Looking at today's -next I= see: > > > > > > > > > > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/linux-next ((next-20190404))$ git grep > > > > > "::kbd_backlight" | wc -l > > > > > 18 > > > > > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/linux-next ((next-20190404))$ git grep > > > > > "platform::kbd_backlight" | wc -l > > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > > > so there isn't a single instance of "platform::kbd_backlight" and= we > > > > > definitely not changing existing names. > > > > > > > > Yeah, we made mistakes in the past. We _don't_ want userspace to ha= ve > > > > ever growing list of names for userspace to follow. > > > > > > > > Backlight of internal keyboard is pretty common concept and there > > > > should be one name for it. > > > > > > It is the *function* that is interesting to userspace, not full name, > > > and we have proper standardization there. > > > > Well, if full name is not interesting, as you argue, why do we have > > this discussion? >=20 > Because I need to understand why you believe that device name for > kbd_backlight matters, and having wilco::kbd_backlight is a bad idea, > but, for example, having max77650::kbd_backlight is perfectly fine if > somebody decided to wire it in this way. max77650::kbd_backlight is not fine and we'll try to prevent that in future. We want one name for internal keyboard backlight. What exactly that name is is not _that_ important, but platform::kbd_backlight seems like reasonable choice. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --Oiv9uiLrevHtW1RS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlymZNcACgkQMOfwapXb+vJMuQCgtpXHKiya8+IaL3HEtsjJ0nwK vB0An3F53T4uI6dDdvkfyntFVdX6tY5Y =Ex99 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Oiv9uiLrevHtW1RS--