Re: 2.6.25 intended change: smc:kbd_backlight vs. smc::kbd_backlight ?

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

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