Hi Mike, Once again you get totally pissed off without explanation. As stated by Andy, most software stacks use the sysfs value to get the max_brightness. Tell us what breaks? If it is new code, why not check max_brightness? 0-63 for brightness? Come on, anyone hard-coding for this is guaranteed not to be portable to other platforms - even GTA03 possibly. 0-255, however, has been in many kernels, for many years and has been thought to be a safe assumption.
So, explain yourself and stop ranting. What will break? I wanted a #define so I could build a kernel for any desired max. Andy thinks we should just go with what is a de-facto standard. Either is OK with me. Mike (mwester) wrote: > Balaji Rao wrote: > >>> It is unfortunate, but there are still some very high profile software >>> stacks that assume brightness ranges from 0-255. A smaller amount that >>> expects 0-100. These will get fixed over time, but it is nice to be able >>> to specify an arbitrary max value in the kernel and have it scale >>> appropriately. I can live with just making it a max of 255, though, as >>> that is what I'm dealing with here. >>> >>> >> Ah, ok. Making it take 256 values hurts none but helps many. If no one >> objects to this, I'll go ahead and do it. >> > > I find it amazing that nobody actually checks with the existing public > distros that currently actually run on the GTA01 and GTA02 devices. > > I guess one can take solace in the thought that this interface change > will ensure that EVERYTHING that currently runs will probably break -- > at least that's fair, right? > > My thought (not that it counts for much here) is that until the person > who is WANTING TO CHANGE AN EXISTING ABI makes the effort to check what > the impact is on the EXISTING and RUNNING distros and software for the > device, NO CHANGE should be made. > > So, go ahead and change it -- but don't be surprised if it pisses off > yet more unhappy and frustrated users who have written code and expect > (reasonably) that it should run on a newer kernel, especially when the > newer kernel is just a minor update.... > > (Oh -- and perhaps someone can clarify why any user of the GTA01 or > GTA02 cares about this "very high profile software stack" more than they > care about the software that they currently run on the device??? That's > hardly a justification for ABI breakage, especially when these so-called > "very high profile software stacks" are not named.) > > Once again, that attitude of STICK IT TO THE USERS! C'mon Openmoko -- > DON'T DO THIS ANYMORE!!! > > Mike (mwester) >
