From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756070Ab2DKKFe (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:05:34 -0400 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237]:63577 "EHLO tim.rpsys.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755718Ab2DKKFd (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:05:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1334138713.10826.134.camel@ted> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation From: Richard Purdie To: shuahkhan@gmail.com Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, LKML Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:05:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1334071916.2287.12.camel@lorien2> References: <1333310039.2879.4.camel@lorien2> <1334064283.10826.6.camel@ted> <1334071916.2287.12.camel@lorien2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:31 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 14:24 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > Having looked at the code and read through the thread and Andrew's patch > > review, I'm left wondering why you didn't add a new trigger for this > > functionality? > > By new trigger do you mean, adding another interface to struct > led_trigger. My first patch to solve this use-case indeed did that. I > still happen to have a copy of that patch. It would require more changes > to the infrastructure than this approach, however it is more explicit > and clear. > > static struct led_trigger gpio_led_trigger = { > .name = "gpio", > + .activate_once = NULL, > .activate = gpio_trig_activate, > .deactivate = gpio_trig_deactivate, > }; No, I did not mean adding another interface. Why can't we have a trigger which just triggers once and then stops? It would be similar to the timer trigger but with a different name and way of operating. > > Dimity raises some valid questions about the force-feedback framework in > > the input system too. We need to make a decision about where phone > > vibration framework belongs and then stick to that. You can argue this > > to either subsystem, neither "led" or "input" is a obvious description > > of phone vibration at a first glance! > > force-feedback framework is another alternative. Making a decision is > great, what are the next steps to get closer to making a call? I'd first like to understand why this couldn't be a separate trigger, then we can understand the alternatives we're comparing. Cheers, Richard