Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix backlight issues on some Windows 8 systems

Yves-Alexis Perez
2013-06-25T21:30:45Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1662 bytes --]

On mar., 2013-06-25 at 22:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:10:11PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On mar., 2013-06-25 at 21:54 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > I agree, we should standardise the behaviour. And the only way we can
> > > standardise the behaviour is to leave it up to userspace.
> > >
> > It's pretty clear we disagree on this and that my opinion won't really
> > matter here. But letting userspace handle that just means broken
> > functionality for those who have the chance (apparently) to have an ACPI
> > backlight interface.
>
> Which, as we've already established, you don't - Lenovo broke it. Your
> Thinkpad claims to have 100 available levels, and most of them don't
> work. The kernel has no way of knowing which levels work and which
> don't, so leaving this up to the kernel won't actually fix your system
> either.

I was referring to “standardize the behaviour by leaving up to
userspace”. A lot of thinkpads (for example) (all the pre-windows 8
ones) have a perfectly working ACPI backlight interface.

Also, if the kernel has no way of knowing which levels work, I fail to
see how userspace can do better.

I understand that switching to intel_backlight instead of acpi_video0
follows what Windows 8 recommends but for me it looks orthogonal to the
fact ACPI methods now have some awkward (Lenovo) or broken (Dell). I
mean, it's not the first time firmware people break some kernel
behavior. I know it's usually not easy to contact them, but shouldn't
those methods be fixed, instead of somehow blindly switching to graphic
drivers?
--
Yves-Alexis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]