Hi! > > If your objection is that FF is not easily engaged from the shell - > > yes, but I do not think that actual users who want to do vibration do > > that via shell either. On the other hand, can you drop privileges and > > still allow a certain process control your vibrator via LED interface? > > With FF you can pass an FD to whoever you deem worthy and later revoke > > access. > > > > IOW sysfs interfaces are nice for quick hacks, but when you want to > > use them in real frameworks, where you need to think about proper > > namespaces, isolation, etc, etc, other kinds of interfaces might suit > > better. > > I'd leave the decision to the user. We could add a note to the > Documentation/leds/ledtrig-transient.txt that force feedback interface > should be preferable choice for driving vibrate devices.
We don't want to leave decision to the user; because then we'll end up
with userland applications having to support _both_ interfaces.
Plus, it is not really your decision. Dmitry is maintainer of input
subsystem, input was doing force feedback for 10+ years, and he
already made a decision.
> However only if following conditions are met:
> - force feedback driver supports gpio driven devices
> - there is sample application in tools/input showing how to
> setup gpio driven vibrate device with use of ff interface
> - it will be possible to setup vibrate interval with 1ms accuracy,
> similarly to what the discussed patch allows to do
I agree these would be nice. Interested parties are welcome to help
there. But I don't think this should have any impact on LED
susbystem. Force feedback just does not belong to LED subsystem.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
