Hi!
> > > +static int ti_lmu_bl_add_device(struct ti_lmu_bank *lmu_bank)
> > > +{
> > > + switch (lmu_bank->type) {
> > > + case TI_LMU_BL:
> > > + return ti_lmu_bl_register_backlight(lmu_bank);
> > > + case TI_LMU_LED:
> > > + return ti_lmu_bl_register_led(lmu_bank);
> > > + default:
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > Ok, this is somehow unusual/crazy. Single driver with two
> > interfaces.
> >
> > Do we need the LED interface for something?
> >
> > If yes, I believe reasonable solution would be to always provide LED
> > interface, and then have "backlight-trigger" which that would provide
> > backlight interface for arbitrary LED.
>
> Userspace expects keyboard backlight to be exposed via the LED
> subsystem and display backlight via the backlight subsystem.
Ok.
> I considered always exposing the banks via the LED subsystem and
> using a generic backlight driver. That brings its own problems,
> since there is a dependency between the display and the backlight.
> This is described in DT using a phandle. Getting the right backlight
> device from the phandle will become very tricky with this approach.
I believe we have to do this.
Virtually any LED can be used as a backlight, and we don't really want
to add two personalities to all the LED drivers.
And it should not be too bad: LED will just have default trigger,
which will say this LED corresponds to this display device. I believe
someone wanted to do that for USB/ethernet activity.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
