On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:34:36PM +0530, Hemanth V wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hemanth V" <hemanthv@xxxxxx> > To: "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@xxxxxxxxx>; "Dmitry Torokhov" <dtor@xxxxxxx> > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Cameron" > ><jic23@xxxxxxxxx> > >To: "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@xxxxxxxxx> > >Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:36 PM > >Subject: Re: Sensor event related attribute naming. > > > > > >>Given the lack of further comment, I went ahead and implemented > >>the above naming > >>scheme for IIO. As the above discussion with Hemanth shows, > >>there are some corner cases > >>that will need futher thought in the future. > >> > > > >Jonathan, haven't seen many comments on this. Do u think the reason > >might be that these interfaces are hidden behind a HAL layer like > >in android and > >might not be a burning issue for many people. > > > > Dmitry, could you let us know your thoughts on this too. > Would using a HAL layer be better compared to creating a standard > sysfs interface, as it seems to be the popular approach. > Hemanth, I do not really see the difference between sysfs interface and HAL interface. They both abstract hardware details and bring them to common denominator. If you guys can agree on HAL interface I trust sysfs should be possible too ;) BTW, the reason I do not comment on sysfs accelerometer infrastructure is because it is not topic I am vested in, my time budget barely covers pure input matters. So as long as there is something that is common and shared between drivers I would be good with it; you guys need to decide on details, please. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
