From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755615Ab2DOQf5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:35:57 -0400 Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.34]:44806 "EHLO g1t0027.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755106Ab2DOQf4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:35:56 -0400 Message-ID: <1334507752.2723.3.camel@lorien2> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation From: Shuah Khan Reply-To: shuahkhan@gmail.com To: Richard Purdie Cc: shuahkhan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, LKML Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:35:52 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1334064283.10826.6.camel@ted> References: <1333310039.2879.4.camel@lorien2> <1334064283.10826.6.camel@ted> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Having looked at the code and read through the thread and Andrew's patch > review, I'm left wondering why you didn't add a new trigger for this > functionality? > > The reason I ask that there do seem to be a number of questions about > backwards compatibility and this also seems to complicate the standard > timer trigger in non-obvious ways. Having a new trigger for this > functionality would allow for a much clearer namespace and no backwards > compatibility issues. It also means additional functionality can be > added later in a contained place. I'm wondering if there is a downside > to a separate trigger I'm missing? I finally :) understand your question about why I didn't add a new trigger. I don't see any reason why I should a new trigger should not be added and it does make it clean without no backwards compatibility issues. I will get working on that and get back to you. Thanks, -- Shuah