From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kamal Mostafa Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] i915 brightness control Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:12:55 -0700 Message-ID: <1285355575.4644.24.camel@fourier> References: <1275516702-27090-1-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com> <20100913174847.GA10443@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-G1xA08RcVfMtddVgZcZn" Return-path: Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:57961 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755699Ab0IXTNZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:13:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100913174847.GA10443@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --=-G1xA08RcVfMtddVgZcZn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 18:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I've looked into this issue more closely and think I've worked out the=20 > underlying problem. The system in question appears to have two GPUs and=20 > exposes two ACPI backlight devices. Both of these are associated with=20 > existing PCI devices, so we don't ignore either of them because of that.=20 > Further, one of them (the AMD one) implements the spec properly and=20 > should work. We don't seem to perform a more fine-grained check to=20 > identify whether every ACPI backlight has all the required methods, and=20 > so as a result we provide both the working one and the non-working one. >=20 > Having thought about this some more, I don't think this is the right=20 > approach. We should be ensuring that every backlight ahs all the=20 > required methods and then dropping the one that doesn't. This should be=20 > replaced with a native i915 backlight, and I sent patches to do that=20 > last week. I agree. Your proposed design is good, and I have successfully tested your proposed patches[1] (after minor porting changes to Ubuntu Maverick's 2.6.35). Thanks very much Matthew! FYI, I have published an experimental Ubuntu Maverick PPA kernel[2] which includes your patches, plus my dell_laptop tweaks to inhibit the broken dell_backlight by a module param or dmi blacklist table (in lieu of a yet to be implemented more fine-grained check). -Kamal Mostafa [1] 2010-09-08 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Add native backlight control 2010-09-08 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Backlight: Add backlight type [2] https://launchpad.net/~kamalmostafa/+archive/linux-kamal-mjgbacklight --=-G1xA08RcVfMtddVgZcZn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJMnPgeAAoJEOf3EFVUCeQi9ckP/0emPdIL89MYq6Hx5u1MF5r+ aGrRbGzc8rEAf7eD4W/Oxg1dZOS909ZwDzgXAahVQHU3LJ/C16IR3IvkzVSUCc3y emPVTR3brUliDOnPPOCaiGhimQQglRvwgm85UpEFB06F3RySaV0XWKSA+4uxkTLa 7EqqHVnD+PWbFPL9fvanxxbPdEH9D0Gb3kEStr9j+z0a6VcSwJP5Z1lNsSqCL+pe BBLl7Q81ub6bSH0DcDiBT3Y15hqdPpDkfehPm6DIuM7+QJDOQbcUu+YWAYE/9e/g BDJPkTZFkdTTVWttWYwLKuGqDyOQmqHcAcODPwRke2hZ1smRcUnIwo4fqYiGx3R4 ni2MOeRhkH1Brri4rD8ctQV5MjYGxnqxhB/9XfmM2GLTTknDttz8+FoEeHW55a8m Ieg3KteSuEVQKDzwz4z1awmBGZKWSUuj0rsXob6A8OiZ7AtYdllb6B/58gKHtiQf 3mqAfCo3OAG4TMLl32TcsLTXnPJYQbbW9JZIYN6WCJ2f+UdqJeOAOkZQOrNXtvxq +P4IR4eCDBkbXaflEYlXDcr0sT8BXUl9uUvQX9CFca8HT3A7rE8IfLXHIE5sQH4+ FnWsjMJfwrPY4ny/QmyyRalRW8k11CFYeJRKZpIJG5jyMk00o9M8LvK/fLHq/VoV yDQUDpurupAFL8OlKTjA =3hK9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-G1xA08RcVfMtddVgZcZn--