[PATCH 0/1] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[PATCH 0/1] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Hans de Goede]

Hi All,

I know that there are plans to enable use_native_backlight by default, so
this may not be necessary:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg57228.html

But this is a problem right now, and those plans are for 3.16 which is still
quite far away, so lets stick with quirks for now so we can at least give
people something working. Moreover, that plan has been tried before and it
did not end well:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/

So lets just keep the quirk list up2date for now, until we've a better
solution.

Regards,

Hans

[PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Hans de Goede]

This fixes the backlight control not working.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/video.c | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/video.c b/drivers/acpi/video.c
index 8b6990e..c688b77 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/video.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/video.c
@@ -520,6 +520,14 @@ static struct dmi_system_id video_dmi_table[] __initdata = {
 		},
 	},
 	{
+	 .callback = video_set_use_native_backlight,
+	 .ident = "Acer Aspire V5-471G",
+	 .matches = {
+		DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Acer"),
+		DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Aspire V5-471G"),
+		},
+	},
+	{
 	.callback = video_set_use_native_backlight,
 	.ident = "HP ProBook 4340s",
 	.matches = {
-- 
1.9.0

Re: [PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
> This fixes the backlight control not working.
> 
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>

Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using
native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going
to apply it.

If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit
it earlier.

Thanks!

> ---
>  drivers/acpi/video.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/video.c b/drivers/acpi/video.c
> index 8b6990e..c688b77 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/video.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/video.c
> @@ -520,6 +520,14 @@ static struct dmi_system_id video_dmi_table[] __initdata = {
>  		},
>  	},
>  	{
> +	 .callback = video_set_use_native_backlight,
> +	 .ident = "Acer Aspire V5-471G",
> +	 .matches = {
> +		DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Acer"),
> +		DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Aspire V5-471G"),
> +		},
> +	},
> +	{
>  	.callback = video_set_use_native_backlight,
>  	.ident = "HP ProBook 4340s",
>  	.matches = {
> 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 04/30/2014 09:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>> This fixes the backlight control not working.
>>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>
> Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using
> native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going
> to apply it.

I strongly disagree, rejecting bug-fixes which conflict with more rigorous
(and dangerous) fixes -next, purely because the conflict with something -next
is not a good reason. TBH I find it a complete non reason to reject these fixes.

> If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit
> it earlier.

Heh, that assumes I was aware of this particular model needing this quirk earlier,
while I actually got the first report of it not working from Vincent on April 26th,
and got confirmation that the quirk fixes it on April 29th. I would say that 1 day
turn around time between getting the confirmation and sending the patch is not bad
at all.

I really believe it is important to get the quirk for this model (and others) into
3.15, here us my decision tree leading to this:

-Do we want to fix these brightness issues -> Yes
-Do we expect our users to wait for 6 months for an upstream fix + many more months
 for the fixed kernel to hit distros -> No
-So we want to backport these fixes to stable -> Yes
-Is the proposed fix for 3.16 acceptable for stable -> No (too high change of
 regressions)

Conclusion: we want quirks for models known to need quirks added to 3.15 and
backported to the various stable series.

I actually want to go as far as to claim that once 3.15 is released we will want
to add quirks to 3.15.x, breaking the every fix must be upstream rule for the stable
series. But lets safe that discussion for later.

I've been doing triaging of (Fedora) brightness bugs for the last few days (I sort of
just rolled into this whole brightness business) and this really is a big problem,
Fedora as well as all other distros are getting lots of bugs, and we need to fix this
now, not in a year from now. To give you an idea here is a partial list of Fedora bugs
I've been working on:

Brightness adjustment FN keys doesn't work
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702352

Brightness/backlight keys (fn+F8, fn+F9) does not work on lenovo T530 out of
the box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947976

Acer Aspire V5-171-9620 display brightness doesn't change using keyboard Fn
keys (but onscreen slider moves)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983342

Dell brightness keys register multiple times
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986653

unable to adjust monitor brightness with nouveua, Toshiba, and 3.11.0 kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999684

Brightness does not change on Intel graphics (using keys or slider) since
about 3.9 kernels
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025690

Brightness keys stopped working between kernel 3.12.10-300 and 3.13.3-201 on Asus EEE PC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067181

T530: Unsupported brightness interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089545

Can't change display brightness on HP EliteBook 8470p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093120

Backlight is non-responsive on Lenovo W530
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093171

As for this specific patch, you can keep it dropped / rejected as I'm going to send a
new patch which adds the quirk for 4 models including this one.

Regards,

Hans

Re: [PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:38:28 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 04/30/2014 09:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> This fixes the backlight control not working.
> >>
> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >
> > Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using
> > native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going
> > to apply it.
> 
> I strongly disagree, rejecting bug-fixes which conflict with more rigorous
> (and dangerous) fixes -next, purely because the conflict with something -next
> is not a good reason. TBH I find it a complete non reason to reject these fixes.
> 
> > If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit
> > it earlier.
> 
> Heh, that assumes I was aware of this particular model needing this quirk earlier,
> while I actually got the first report of it not working from Vincent on April 26th,
> and got confirmation that the quirk fixes it on April 29th. I would say that 1 day
> turn around time between getting the confirmation and sending the patch is not bad
> at all.
> 
> I really believe it is important to get the quirk for this model (and others) into
> 3.15, here us my decision tree leading to this:
> 
> -Do we want to fix these brightness issues -> Yes
> -Do we expect our users to wait for 6 months for an upstream fix + many more months
>  for the fixed kernel to hit distros -> No
> -So we want to backport these fixes to stable -> Yes
> -Is the proposed fix for 3.16 acceptable for stable -> No (too high change of
>  regressions)

OK, this is a good argument.

> Conclusion: we want quirks for models known to need quirks added to 3.15 and
> backported to the various stable series.
> 
> I actually want to go as far as to claim that once 3.15 is released we will want
> to add quirks to 3.15.x, breaking the every fix must be upstream rule for the stable
> series. But lets safe that discussion for later.

Well, there's a way out of this.  Instead of doing commit 170269a9d3c0 as is, we
can just switch the default without removing the blacklist just yet.  And remove
the blacklist one we are reasonably confident that the new default actually works.

In which case I'd go for your original series (along with the RFC moving stuff
out of blacklist.c to the video.c blacklist) with a replacement of commit
170269a9d3c0 that will simply flip the default.

Does this make sense to you?

> I've been doing triaging of (Fedora) brightness bugs for the last few days (I sort of
> just rolled into this whole brightness business) and this really is a big problem,

I'm very much aware of that.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 05/01/2014 10:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:38:28 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04/30/2014 09:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> This fixes the backlight control not working.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using
>>> native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going
>>> to apply it.
>>
>> I strongly disagree, rejecting bug-fixes which conflict with more rigorous
>> (and dangerous) fixes -next, purely because the conflict with something -next
>> is not a good reason. TBH I find it a complete non reason to reject these fixes.
>>
>>> If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit
>>> it earlier.
>>
>> Heh, that assumes I was aware of this particular model needing this quirk earlier,
>> while I actually got the first report of it not working from Vincent on April 26th,
>> and got confirmation that the quirk fixes it on April 29th. I would say that 1 day
>> turn around time between getting the confirmation and sending the patch is not bad
>> at all.
>>
>> I really believe it is important to get the quirk for this model (and others) into
>> 3.15, here us my decision tree leading to this:
>>
>> -Do we want to fix these brightness issues -> Yes
>> -Do we expect our users to wait for 6 months for an upstream fix + many more months
>>  for the fixed kernel to hit distros -> No
>> -So we want to backport these fixes to stable -> Yes
>> -Is the proposed fix for 3.16 acceptable for stable -> No (too high change of
>>  regressions)
> 
> OK, this is a good argument.
> 
>> Conclusion: we want quirks for models known to need quirks added to 3.15 and
>> backported to the various stable series.
>>
>> I actually want to go as far as to claim that once 3.15 is released we will want
>> to add quirks to 3.15.x, breaking the every fix must be upstream rule for the stable
>> series. But lets safe that discussion for later.
> 
> Well, there's a way out of this.  Instead of doing commit 170269a9d3c0 as is, we
> can just switch the default without removing the blacklist just yet.  And remove
> the blacklist one we are reasonably confident that the new default actually works.
> 
> In which case I'd go for your original series (along with the RFC moving stuff
> out of blacklist.c to the video.c blacklist) with a replacement of commit
> 170269a9d3c0 that will simply flip the default.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?

Yes that seems like a good solution, thanks!

I'll rebase and resend my RFC for moving the models from blacklist.c to video.c as non
RFC.

Who is going to do the only flip the default version of 170269a9d3c0 ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: [PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, May 02, 2014 11:02:54 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 05/01/2014 10:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:38:28 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 04/30/2014 09:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>>> This fixes the backlight control not working.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using
> >>> native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going
> >>> to apply it.
> >>
> >> I strongly disagree, rejecting bug-fixes which conflict with more rigorous
> >> (and dangerous) fixes -next, purely because the conflict with something -next
> >> is not a good reason. TBH I find it a complete non reason to reject these fixes.
> >>
> >>> If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit
> >>> it earlier.
> >>
> >> Heh, that assumes I was aware of this particular model needing this quirk earlier,
> >> while I actually got the first report of it not working from Vincent on April 26th,
> >> and got confirmation that the quirk fixes it on April 29th. I would say that 1 day
> >> turn around time between getting the confirmation and sending the patch is not bad
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> I really believe it is important to get the quirk for this model (and others) into
> >> 3.15, here us my decision tree leading to this:
> >>
> >> -Do we want to fix these brightness issues -> Yes
> >> -Do we expect our users to wait for 6 months for an upstream fix + many more months
> >>  for the fixed kernel to hit distros -> No
> >> -So we want to backport these fixes to stable -> Yes
> >> -Is the proposed fix for 3.16 acceptable for stable -> No (too high change of
> >>  regressions)
> > 
> > OK, this is a good argument.
> > 
> >> Conclusion: we want quirks for models known to need quirks added to 3.15 and
> >> backported to the various stable series.
> >>
> >> I actually want to go as far as to claim that once 3.15 is released we will want
> >> to add quirks to 3.15.x, breaking the every fix must be upstream rule for the stable
> >> series. But lets safe that discussion for later.
> > 
> > Well, there's a way out of this.  Instead of doing commit 170269a9d3c0 as is, we
> > can just switch the default without removing the blacklist just yet.  And remove
> > the blacklist one we are reasonably confident that the new default actually works.
> > 
> > In which case I'd go for your original series (along with the RFC moving stuff
> > out of blacklist.c to the video.c blacklist) with a replacement of commit
> > 170269a9d3c0 that will simply flip the default.
> > 
> > Does this make sense to you?
> 
> Yes that seems like a good solution, thanks!
> 
> I'll rebase and resend my RFC for moving the models from blacklist.c to video.c as non
> RFC.
> 
> Who is going to do the only flip the default version of 170269a9d3c0 ?

That would be either you or me I guess. :-)

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH] acpi-video: Put the Acer Aspire V5-471G on the use_native_backlight dmi list

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 05/02/2014 01:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, May 02, 2014 11:02:54 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/01/2014 10:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:38:28 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 04/30/2014 09:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> This fixes the backlight control not working.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using
>>>>> native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going
>>>>> to apply it.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly disagree, rejecting bug-fixes which conflict with more rigorous
>>>> (and dangerous) fixes -next, purely because the conflict with something -next
>>>> is not a good reason. TBH I find it a complete non reason to reject these fixes.
>>>>
>>>>> If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit
>>>>> it earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Heh, that assumes I was aware of this particular model needing this quirk earlier,
>>>> while I actually got the first report of it not working from Vincent on April 26th,
>>>> and got confirmation that the quirk fixes it on April 29th. I would say that 1 day
>>>> turn around time between getting the confirmation and sending the patch is not bad
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> I really believe it is important to get the quirk for this model (and others) into
>>>> 3.15, here us my decision tree leading to this:
>>>>
>>>> -Do we want to fix these brightness issues -> Yes
>>>> -Do we expect our users to wait for 6 months for an upstream fix + many more months
>>>>  for the fixed kernel to hit distros -> No
>>>> -So we want to backport these fixes to stable -> Yes
>>>> -Is the proposed fix for 3.16 acceptable for stable -> No (too high change of
>>>>  regressions)
>>>
>>> OK, this is a good argument.
>>>
>>>> Conclusion: we want quirks for models known to need quirks added to 3.15 and
>>>> backported to the various stable series.
>>>>
>>>> I actually want to go as far as to claim that once 3.15 is released we will want
>>>> to add quirks to 3.15.x, breaking the every fix must be upstream rule for the stable
>>>> series. But lets safe that discussion for later.
>>>
>>> Well, there's a way out of this.  Instead of doing commit 170269a9d3c0 as is, we
>>> can just switch the default without removing the blacklist just yet.  And remove
>>> the blacklist one we are reasonably confident that the new default actually works.
>>>
>>> In which case I'd go for your original series (along with the RFC moving stuff
>>> out of blacklist.c to the video.c blacklist) with a replacement of commit
>>> 170269a9d3c0 that will simply flip the default.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense to you?
>>
>> Yes that seems like a good solution, thanks!
>>
>> I'll rebase and resend my RFC for moving the models from blacklist.c to video.c as non
>> RFC.
>>
>> Who is going to do the only flip the default version of 170269a9d3c0 ?
> 
> That would be either you or me I guess. :-)

I've already spend way too much time on backlight stuff lately, so if you could do it,
that would be great.

Regards,

Hans

p.s.

I've written a blog post about backlight brightness control, so that I've a
link with some basic background and a step-by-step guide for debugging to
put into future backlight bug reports:
http://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/13889.html

Feel free to use it for the same purpose, and comments / suggestions for
improving it are very much welcome.