Re: [GIT PULL] Ambient Light Sensors subsystem
From: Jean Delvare
Date: Sun Mar 07 2010 - 07:34:34 EST
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:19:03 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Anyhow, the way this conversation is going there appear to be several options
> and we need to make a decision before anyone wastes much more time.
> 1) ALS as is. It's extremely light weight and can always be merged with a better
> option at a later date. If people prefer we can always stick it in a subdirectory
> called sensors or similar.
This would be fine with me.
> Perhaps move hwmon in there as well.
I doubt it, especially if the interface to other sensors changes to
treat them as input devices. At any rate, the hwmon interface is
standardized since kernel ~2.6.5 and widely used, we're not going to
change it now. So the benefit of sitting with other sensor type drivers
is thin, probably thinner than the cost of the move.
> 2) Input. I agree with Dmitry here. These devices are not within the scope as it
> currently exists. It can be done and there have been numerous discussions about
> doing so in the past (with various sensor types) and each time it has been decided
> that it isn't the right option. Perhaps opinion on this has changed?
I can't comment on this. It would seem reasonable to let the users
(user-space applications) describe their needs and build the interface
on top of that rather than the other away around. For this purpose,
LKML doesn't seem like the right place to discuss. And I won't be the
one driving the discussion anyway, I'm just a tourist here.
> 3) Leave as is. Perhaps move all such drivers to misc and introduce some documentation
> in an attempt to standardize the interface they export. To all intents and purposes
> this is the core of als anyway. What we loose is a consistent location and device
> naming for userspace usage.
No. I don't think it makes any sense. As you underline it yourself, it
has all the issues ALS has, without the main benefit.
> 4) Move them into IIO. They are within the scope we are covering. I agreed
> with the ALS subsystem when it was proposed as it was clean small and ready now
> not because I particularly wanted them out of IIO (there is still one there.)
Fine with me as well.
> Two comments on option 4:
> a) If we do it now rather than taking one of the other options and moving them later,
> then we are moving two perfectly good drivers out of the main tree into staging.
> Doesn't matter to me, may to others.
Doesn't matter to me either, FWIW.
> b) If anyone comes back later and says, 'IIO is a massively overweight subsystem for
> such simple drivers', then I reserve the right to get rather somewhat annoyed.
> We have always kept the core driver requirement (that needed for these drivers)
> as slim as possible. Of course suggestions on how to make it slimmer without
> breaking other functionality are welcome.
> Please can anyone who feels like suggesting another general sensors subsystem
> at least taking a look at IIO (and keeping in mind we are in the middle of a big
> API cleanup). If you disagree with how we have done things, then contribute
> to the discussions and they may change.
4 days left before I take care of driver tsl2550 myself.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/