Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757198AbZGPCip (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:38:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757167AbZGPCip (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:38:45 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:49020 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757074AbZGPCio (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:38:44 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,408,1243839600"; d="scan'208";a="475301000" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] backlight: Allow drivers to update the core, and generate events on changes From: Zhang Rui To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Richard Purdie , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "corentincj@iksaif.net" In-Reply-To: <20090715135808.GA19054@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1247517685-7719-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <1247574573.23871.8.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1247644518.26272.88.camel@rzhang-dt> <1247646153.6248.3.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1247647105.26272.99.camel@rzhang-dt> <1247649089.20241.5.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <20090715135808.GA19054@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:39:34 +0800 Message-Id: <1247711974.26272.190.camel@rzhang-dt> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 (2.22.1-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1217 Lines: 32 On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 21:58 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:11:29AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > So there are basically two values we're ever interested in at a given > > point in time. The current ambient light reading and the corresponding > > display luminance adjustment. Both of those could just be exposed as an > > input device really? > > The alternative would be hwmon, I guess. you mean convert an ACPI ALS device to a hwmon device? > > > Agreed, userspace should be where policy is decided. Having a standalone > > module which connected the two together with a "default" policy might be > > acceptable too though? If userspace then wants to handle things it just > > makes sure the module is not loaded. > > You want smoothing even in a default policy, and doing that well might > be a bit much for the kernel? > sorry, I don't understand. do you mean that there should be a default policy in the kernel? thanks, rui -- 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/