On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:23 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > Yeah, well, we not let the cros_kbd_led_backlight.c use chromeos:: in > > > > > the first place. But it happened. We want all backlights for the > > > > > system keyboard to use common name, and "chromeos" is not really > > > > > suitable for that. "platform" is. > > > > > > > > Pavel, who exactly wants this and why? Looking at today's -next I see: > > > > > > > > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/linux-next ((next-20190404))$ git grep > > > > "::kbd_backlight" | wc -l > > > > 18 > > > > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/linux-next ((next-20190404))$ git grep > > > > "platform::kbd_backlight" | wc -l > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > so there isn't a single instance of "platform::kbd_backlight" and we > > > > definitely not changing existing names. > > > > > > Yeah, we made mistakes in the past. We _don't_ want userspace to have > > > ever growing list of names for userspace to follow. > > > > > > Backlight of internal keyboard is pretty common concept and there > > > should be one name for it. > > > > It is the *function* that is interesting to userspace, not full name, > > and we have proper standardization there. > > Well, if full name is not interesting, as you argue, why do we have > this discussion? Because I need to understand why you believe that device name for kbd_backlight matters, and having wilco::kbd_backlight is a bad idea, but, for example, having max77650::kbd_backlight is perfectly fine if somebody decided to wire it in this way. Thanks. -- Dmitry
