On Sun 2018-07-15 00:02:57, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> 
> On 07/14/2018 11:20 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >>>It also drew my attention to the issue of desired pattern sysfs
> >>>interface semantics on uninitialized pattern. In your implementation
> >>>user seems to be unable to determine if the pattern is activated
> >>>or not. We should define the semantics for this use case and
> >>>describe it in the documentation. Possibly pattern could
> >>>return alone new line character then.
> >
> >Let me take a step back: we have triggers.. like LED blinking.
> >
> >How is that going to interact with patterns? We probably want the
> >patterns to be ignored in that case...?
> >
> >Which suggest to me that we should treat patterns as a trigger. I
> >believe we do something similar with blinking already.
> >
> >Then it is easy to determine if pattern is active, and pattern
> >vs. trigger issue is solved automatically.
> 
> I'm all for it. I proposed this approach during the previous
> discussions related to possible pattern interface implementations,
> but you seemed not to be so enthusiastic in [0].
> 
> [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/7/350

Hmm. Reading my own email now, I can't decipher it.

I believe I meant "changing patterns from kernel in response to events
is probably overkill"... or something like that.

Sorry about confusion,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html