From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Tissoires Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to lid_init_state=open" Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:08:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20170524080830.GE13096@mail.corp.redhat.com> References: <20170510161240.13229-1-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> <20170511094551.GF30987@mail.corp.redhat.com> <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CEA2CC4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2574646.jh0JF0mi0Y@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170515074553.GJ30987@mail.corp.redhat.com> <20170515093752.GB11762@mail.corp.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36914 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967153AbdEXIIg (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2017 04:08:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Zheng, Lv" , Jiri Eischmann , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Hi Rafael, On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct? > >> > > >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for professional > >> > laptops that expect the LID switch to be reported accurately. > >> > >> And from a user's perspective, what does not work any more? > > > > If you boot or resume your laptop with the lid closed on a docking > > station while using an external monitor connected to it, both internal > > and external displays will light on, while only the external should. > > > > There is a design choice in gdm to only provide the greater on the > > internal display when lit on, so users only see a gray area on the > > external monitor. Also, the cursor will not show up as it's by default > > on the internal display too. > > > > To "fix" that, users have to open the laptop once and close it once > > again to sync the state of the switch with the hardware state. > > OK > > Yeah, that sucks. > > So without the Lv's patch the behavior (on the systems in question) is > as expected, right? Would you agree to take both these reverts without Lv's ACK? We already tried to explain for 2 weeks that they are valuable, but it seems we can't make change his mind. I have more that 26 emails in my INBOX (not counting my replies) and I would really like switching to more valuable work than explaining again and again that when a regression is introduced, it needs to be fixed (or reverted in that case). Cheers, Benjamin