From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755413AbcHXTJy (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:09:54 -0400 Received: from canardo.mork.no ([148.122.252.1]:55354 "EHLO canardo.mork.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753643AbcHXTJu (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:09:50 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= To: =?utf-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= Cc: Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , Felipe Balbi , Greg KH , Peter Chen , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , Jonathan Corbet , Ezequiel Garcia , Stephan Linz , Matthias Brugger , Boris Brezillon , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list), linux-leds@vger.kernel.org (open list:LED SUBSYSTEM) Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V3.5] leds: trigger: Introduce an USB port trigger Organization: m References: <20160823220404.9887-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <20160824175345.7033-1-zajec5@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:48:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20160824175345.7033-1-zajec5@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Rafa?= =?utf-8?Q?=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki=22's?= message of "Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:52:56 +0200") Message-ID: <87zio2ypel.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130015 (Ma Gnus v0.15) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id u7OJ9wFV032564 Rafał Miłecki writes: > The last big missing thing is Documentation update (this is why I'm > sending RFC). Greg pointed out we should have some entries in > Documentation/ABI, but it seems none of triggers have it. There's a lot missing, but there is at least one exception: The "inverted" attribute of the gpio and backlight triggers is documented as part of Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-led > Any idea why is that? Manual enforcement fails from time to time? The requirement was less strict in the early days of sysfs? Does it matter? > Do we need to change it? Or is it required for new code only? The lack of ABI docs is a bug. Don't add new code with known bugs. Old code should be fixed, but there is no immediate *need* to fix it. Bjørn