Hi, On 11/21/2016 12:41 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>>> As pointed in other email, we do not know if HW really controls keyboard backlight, >>>> so adding "fake" trigger on machines without HW control is not a good idea. >>> >>> Well, if we know that hardware will not change the brightness on its >>> own, yes, I'd avoid the trigger. If we don't know (as is common on >>> ACPI machines, I'd keep the trigger). >> >> I'd drop the trigger approach due to the mess it can make in peoples' >> minds due to the fact that LED class device handles trigger events >> generated by itself. > > We can teach people. IMO the LED that changes itself is special, and > trigger explains that nicely to the userspace. Plus, it allows us to > keep this functionality out of the core. Please refer to the downsides of this appraoch: - lack of information if given LED class device supports hw generated POLLPRI events - impossible to apply other trigger while polling - circular trigger event path (if set_brightness parameter of ledtrig_kbd_backlight() is true) >> I'd add a file hw_brightness_change or async_brightness or something >> similar and make it only readable/pollable. current_brightness is >> ambiguous and questionable. > > Well, exact name is not too important... The name should clearly explain the file purpose. I bet that we would see many questions once the file appeared in the mainline. Also, I'm afraid that I wouldn't be able to explain this name in few simple words, without daunting the listener, or even triggering the discussion on brightness shortcomings we've already gone through. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
