From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: i915: Default max backlight brightness value Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:32:12 +0000 Message-ID: <20111031203212.GA10870@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1318636017-14568-1-git-send-email-sque@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk (cavan.codon.org.uk [93.93.128.6]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D181B9ED8C for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1318636017-14568-1-git-send-email-sque@chromium.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Simon Que Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, olofj@chromium.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:46:57PM -0700, Simon Que wrote: Sorry, I thought I'd replied to this already. Sorry about that. > +static u32 intel_panel_get_default_backlight_period(struct drm_device *dev) > +{ > + /* The default number of clock cycles in one backlight PWM period. */ > + return 0x1000; I'm uncomfortable with just hardcoding this, especially given that the comment you're removing implies that it's possible to infer the correct value from other GPU values. If this does vary between machines then simply hardcoding it now isn't really any better than the existing error path - it might make things better for some systems, but it has the potential to break hardware that expects a different value and no longer generates an error in that case. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org