Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:33:30 -0600 |
| |
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:05 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:31 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 14:24 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> No, I did not mean adding another interface. Why can't we have a trigger > which just triggers once and then stops? It would be similar to the > timer trigger but with a different name and way of operating.
This patch adds code to register a new trigger named timer-no-default and uses delay_on and delay_off to set the timer once. timer is not set when delay == LED_TIMER_FOREVER. Are you concerned about overloading blink_delay_on and blink_delay_off values specifically?
> > > > Dimity raises some valid questions about the force-feedback framework in > > > the input system too. We need to make a decision about where phone > > > vibration framework belongs and then stick to that. You can argue this > > > to either subsystem, neither "led" or "input" is a obvious description > > > of phone vibration at a first glance! > > > > force-feedback framework is another alternative. Making a decision is > > great, what are the next steps to get closer to making a call? > > I'd first like to understand why this couldn't be a separate trigger, > then we can understand the alternatives we're comparing.
Yes. No problem doing that.
-- Shuah > > Cheers, > > Richard > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
| |