From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] toshiba_acpi: fingers off backlight if video.ko is serving this functionality Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:20:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20081115172052.GA9537@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200811081637.45099.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <200811152005.05031.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <20081115171110.GA9332@srcf.ucam.org> <200811152017.56926.arvidjaar@mail.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:47251 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751649AbYKORU5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:20:57 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200811152017.56926.arvidjaar@mail.ru> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrey Borzenkov Cc: Thomas Renninger , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 08:17:52PM +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > On Saturday 15 November 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > If you think exposing both knobs is non-issue, why are all those patches > > > for other vendor drivers included in the kernel in the first place? > > > > Because in some of those cases, the ACPI and vendor function are > > implemented in different ways that can then get out of sync with each > > other. As a result, you can get garbage information. If the values in > > your two backlight interfaces are always sane, then there's no inherent > > need to hide one of them. > > THE VALUE IN MY TWO BACKLIGHT INTERFACES ARE NOT THE SAME. I said this many > times already. What exactly is not clear in this sentence? Where did I say that they were? You never answered the question I asked - if you set the value in the toshiba specific backlight control to a value that isn't supported via the generic acpi one, what value does the generic acpi one claim to have? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org