On Wed 2016-02-24 12:01:37, Johannes Berg wrote:

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 11:46 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:

quoted

If you want different trigger, implement different trigger. If you
want to indicate all but wifi, implement all but wifi, and then
userspace can select it by writing trigger name. 

This is still mostly a strawman, since userspace cannot have a database
of LEDs that indicate airplane mode.

Why would it need to? It could look at default triggers for the led if
it really wanted to.

I'm sure you'd also not like to see 2**7 triggers implemented in rfkill
to cover all the possibilities.

Are all the possibilities useful? I assumed about 2 are. If you need
2**7 of them, LED triggers can have parameters.

quoted

If you want complete
userspace control, fine, but we have standard interface and it is not
ioctl.

The "standard interface" is usable if you really just want to driver a
single LED and you know which one.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, focusing too much on the
LED aspect.

Really what you have here is a concept of "airplane mode", and that
concept is specific to the rfkill subsystem. This happens to affect
mostly an LED trigger, today, but as a concept it's something that
*should* be managed within the rfkill subsystem.

How is that concept used outside the LEDs? What semantics does
"airplane mode" have? You tried to explain "airplane mode" is not well
defined up in this thread...

quoted

Besides, the series really should have been Cc-ed to LED
people, too.

That's simply unreasonable, you're essentially saying that any user of
any kernel infrastructure should be Cc'ed to the implementer of that
infrastructure... 9/10 patches in this series aren't even LED

quoted

specific,

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that LED maintainers should be Cced,
to keep the interfaces consistent.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html