Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: 2.6.25 intended change: smc:kbd_backlight vs. smc::kbd_backlight ? | From | Richard Purdie <> | Date | Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:22:33 +0100 |
| |
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 17:33 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 11:42 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > Basically the LED names were a mess, there is a documented standard > > which has been there since the beginning (Documentation/leds-class.txt) > > and a number of drivers didn't follow that. That standardisation commit > > was an attempt to deal with this problem once and for all and in that > > sense its a bugfix, not a regression. The fact function wasn't part of > > the original naming scheme was a mistake (see previous discussions on > > LKML) which we're trying to address without breaking the documented > > standard. The side effect is that some existing drivers need to be > > updated to match the documentation (and should never have been merged in > > the first place because of that) :(. > > So to make it clear "devicename:colour:function" means in the case of > applesmc smc::kbd_backlight because there is no colour defined. One > could have used "devicename:function:colour" without breaking things - > no ?
No, since devicename:colour was there from the start and the documentation said we could append to it.
> So it seems we will have to file bug reports to the led dealing > userspace programs ...
I'm afraid so, not ideal but we need to get this sorted out properly once and for all.
Regards,
Richard
|  |