From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:50330 "EHLO smtp5-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754511Ab0IEI40 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:56:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:56:27 +0200 From: Jean-Francois Moine To: Hans de Goede Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] LED control Message-ID: <20100905105627.0d5d3dab@tele> In-Reply-To: <4C834D46.5030801@redhat.com> References: <20100904131048.6ca207d1@tele> <4C834D46.5030801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT List-ID: Sender: Mauro Carvalho Chehab On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:56:54 +0200 Hans de Goede wrote: > I think that using one control for both status leds (which is what we > are usually talking about) and illuminator(s) is a bad idea. I'm fine > with standardizing these, but can we please have 2 CID's one for > status lights and one for the led. Esp, as I can easily see us > supporting a microscope in the future where the microscope itself or > other devices with the same bridge will have a status led, so then we > will need 2 separate controls anyways. Hi Hans, I was not thinking about the status light (I do not see any other usage for it), but well about illuminators which I saw only in microscopes. So, which is the better name? V4L2_CID_LAMPS? V4L2_CID_ILLUMINATORS? Cheers. -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/