From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karol Babioch Subject: Re: [PATCH] ideapad-laptop: Use intel_backlight only on Lenovo B470e Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:35:33 +0200 Message-ID: <53F68245.20403@babioch.de> References: <1408342153-16764-1-git-send-email-yidi.lin@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xqQPjLIj0QlxS1FTM32PRdP1jk3Cd7a8t" Return-path: Received: from babioch.de ([176.9.120.167]:33058 "EHLO babioch.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750854AbaHUXnj (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:43:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1408342153-16764-1-git-send-email-yidi.lin@canonical.com> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Edward Lin , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org Cc: mattia Dongili This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --xqQPjLIj0QlxS1FTM32PRdP1jk3Cd7a8t Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Edward Lin, Am 18.08.2014 um 08:09 schrieb Edward Lin: > ACPI video is not functional on Lenovo B470e. > The brightness control is also broken with vendor mode. > The brightness control only works with intel_backlight. By looking at your description (and your patch) I'm wondering how exactly this problem made itself apparent? I'm having a similar (the same?) issue with my Sony Vaio VPCS12C5E. The backlight interface registered by ACPI does not work and I have to boot with the command line option "acpi_backlight=3Dvendor". Even then two interfaces get registered "nv_backlight" and "sony", only one of which (nv_backlight) works. Desktop environments (GNOME in particular) seem to be confused by this, so I always have to change the brightness by writing directly into the "actual_brightness" file. I've reported this back in 2012 [1], but was told that it is an ACPI issue and so it never was fixed. Couldn't a similar patch be applied to the sony-laptop module? I've added Mattia Dongili to the discussion, hopefully he doesn't mind to take a look at this again. I'm glad to test any patches, but am not familiar enough with all of the internal structs to mess around with them for myself without breaking support for other users of this module, especially since my model was shipped with in two different versions: One with the internal Intel GPU and another with a dedicated Nvidia GPU. I'm afraid a simple DMI match might not be good enough in this case? Best regards, Karol Babioch [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg03406.html --xqQPjLIj0QlxS1FTM32PRdP1jk3Cd7a8t Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT9oJGAAoJEHSaZc1HnzIVEb0QAJZI8a1LT6vOEyRqbMfsSZnc xaQ6rHMOYv+ks1C3AKgDLsiNYykYSY/A6v7rs78bJvLpiWPfXob6bUbJ6CAkq4Lz FMqJHcKO4JN75LiCfNAFnBjw5EZ4I4pW8E3sNhN3CSIcur0UMmczBdGgRAVIu2w9 BRiyRrUwfINUB3Ayrd0jEpzwvZjHJsTwWInZkSZwsnI4xto6oNg4F2HuvDuxxmLf w3hyonluTrEPps0rjIHrzp2QcqWdPLw8ifHO+EiPCeTE50TRruqfucX+PAnBDSMv svM5mAwPc3TmNRfS0Ypw3Imbc3ZNMXMjMZkPEf9NhPhE/S3R0eGeRTWF69kiRJrP BxK5hoJWHDqKzMVhYi08V8795RaSrQK2dXaWQZeQht5isfkjAwmjwmXpR3x1Q7tW Pt1W2Y0DlAdhYQ4VD/4Oubl8BDhc41Bmrffd89+BNiLr7fpTPG9bgq0idaGUUQ/k ucIsU34Jdkxjk0VZ+juVgIb67ZG2GBneh+rW0cpsAUQ1JfqrOYUrJh+xy3YU9NWG CgZU8Adv4B6QpeFTI4e9YocvxgF5jtaNxBzFrwRi/I192JzRga/JcIA3bkdaVrGC l0BQd/J8FwRmAaO39/bbFZghcrUErd9eIQf3Wl1eblZ/2wYplowdMyxYABgvENm3 Xa/fO624ROs85fMo9ufA =Uo8J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xqQPjLIj0QlxS1FTM32PRdP1jk3Cd7a8t--