From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from relay01.digicable.hu ([92.249.128.189]:46088 "EHLO relay01.digicable.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967944Ab0B0IW2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:22:28 -0500 Message-ID: <4B88D642.3010907@freemail.hu> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:22:26 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TsOpbWV0aCBNw6FydG9u?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans de Goede CC: Jean-Francois Moine , Richard Purdie , V4L Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gspca pac7302: allow controlling LED separately References: <4B84CC9E.4030600@freemail.hu> <20100224082238.53c8f6f8@tele> <4B886566.8000600@freemail.hu> <4B88CF6C.2070703@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B88CF6C.2070703@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 02/27/2010 01:20 AM, Németh Márton wrote: >> From: Márton Németh >> >> On Labtec Webcam 2200 there is a feedback LED which can be controlled >> independent from the streaming. > > This is true for a lot of cameras, so if we are going to add a way to > support control of the LED separate of the streaming state, we > should do that at the gspca_main level, and let sub drivers which > support this export a set_led callback function. If the code is moved to gspca_main level, what shall be the name of the LED? According to Documentation/leds-class.txt, chapter "LED Device Naming" my proposal for "devicename" would be: * /sys/class/leds/video-0::camera * /sys/class/leds/video-1::camera * /sys/class/leds/video-2::camera * ... or * /sys/class/leds/video0::camera * /sys/class/leds/video1::camera * /sys/class/leds/video2::camera * ... Which is the right one? > I must say I personally don't see much of a use case for this feature, > but I believe JF Moine does, so I'll leave further comments and > review of this to JF. I do believe it is important that if we go this > way we do so add the gspca_main level. > > Regards, > > Hans