From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753847AbYDEQWz (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:22:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753673AbYDEQWr (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:22:47 -0400 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([194.106.48.114]:60849 "EHLO tim.rpsys.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752380AbYDEQWq (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:22:46 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.25 intended change: smc:kbd_backlight vs. smc::kbd_backlight ? From: Richard Purdie To: Soeren Sonnenburg Cc: Justin Mattock , Julien BLACHE , Linux Kernel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" In-Reply-To: <1207409620.4224.10.camel@localhost> References: <1207162690.9669.11.camel@localhost> <1207292068.4511.10.camel@localhost> <1207373556.10237.2.camel@localhost> <1207392125.5021.11.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1207409620.4224.10.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:22:33 +0100 Message-Id: <1207412553.5021.46.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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