On Mon 2017-09-18 22:43:40, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/17/2017 07:50 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >>>> Do you think such an improvement could be harmful in some way, > >>>> even if it was made optional? > >>> > >>> Of course, we can make LED timing accurate down to microseconds. It will > >>> mean increased overhead -- for "improvement" human can not perceive. > >>> > >>> If someone has problems with LED delays not being accurate enough... we > >>> may want to fix it. But that is not the case here, is it? > >> > >> AFAIR David was mentioning that the hr_timer support is perceivable > > > > He said that hr_timer support is perceivable _when he is driving > > vibration motor_. Which he should not do in the first place. > > > > Yes, if the difference is perceivable with LED in non-crazy > > configuration (*), we can take the patch. Is it? Do we have someone > > not from Google observing it? > > > > (*) emulating PWM using blink trigger counts as "crazy" :-) > > How about adding CONFIG_LED_TRIGGERS_HR_TIMER_SUPPORT, guarding the > hr timer support in triggers (timer trigger could also benefit from it) > with it, and adding "(EXPERIMENTAL)" tag to the config description? Why would we want to add code in the LED subsystem that is useless for LEDs? 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
