Re: Less strict requirements for video device detection (v3)

[Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2254 bytes --]

Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 18:00 +0800, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> Zhang Rui wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 17:14 +0800, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>> Hardware: Acer 6920G (from a bug report)
>>>>
>>>> Another case of a broken BIOS. In this case there are several definitions for 
>>>> video bus devices but only one has _DOS and _DOD defined. All other definitions 
>>>> only have _DOD.
>>> I have seen such kind of BIOS too.
>>>
>>>> In the past (2.6.27) _ADR was not evaluated to make sure of using a present 
>>>> video device, but with that bug brightness could be changed.
>>>>
>>>> Now the video bus having _DOS and _DOD is detected as not being present. The 
>>>> other definitions are not considered because they are lacking the _DOS method.
>>>> Using the attached patch, would cause the detection code to consider the other 
>>>> definitions and has been tested to enable backlight control.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be an acceptable approach?
>>> I think so. I generated a similar patch before, but didn't sent it out
>>> for some reason.
>>> My suggestion is that we should also print out a warning message if _DOS
>>> is missed, what do you think?
>> Some indication about the problem can't hurt. Probably not in 
>> acpi_is_video_device as that would trigger for even unused devices.
>> So I added a warning to acpi_video_bus_check for the case when _DOS is missing. 
> 
> how about using printk(KERN_WARNING FW_BUG "blabla")?

I am not biased on that.

-Stefan
> thanks,
> rui
> 
>> The case of _DOS being present but _DOD not might also be worth a warning but 
>> (though the check in acpi_is_video_device prevented this) would have been 
>> accepted by the current code.
>> -Stefan
>>
>>> thanks,
>>> rui
>>>
>>>>  From the ACPI spec it rather sounds like 
>>>> _DOD and _DOS must be present for a device for display switching and _DOS would 
>>>> indicate possible backlight control as well. So the question might not be so 
>>>> much is it the right thing than is it safe enough to allow more compatibility 
>>>> with broken implementations without causing other problems...
>>>>
>>>> -Stefan
>>>>
>>
> 


-- 

When all other means of communication fail, try words!



[-- Attachment #2: 0001-acpi-video-Loosen-strictness-of-video-bus-detectio.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1989 bytes --]

>From 6b483015524f67dee3ae2f08f3c0cef27c9d84c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:03:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] acpi: video: Loosen strictness of video bus detection code

BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/333386

Currently a video bus device must (beside other criteria) define _DOD and
_DOS methods to be considered a video device.
Some broken BIOSes prevented working backlight control by only defining both
for one (non-existing bus) and only _DOD for the rest. With this patch in
place the other bus definitions were considered too and backlight control
started to work again.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/video.c        |    7 ++++++-
 drivers/acpi/video_detect.c |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/video.c b/drivers/acpi/video.c
index 8851315..acd4636 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/video.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/video.c
@@ -1083,7 +1083,12 @@ static int acpi_video_bus_check(struct acpi_video_bus *video)
 	 */
 
 	/* Does this device support video switching? */
-	if (video->cap._DOS) {
+	if (video->cap._DOS || video->cap._DOD) {
+		if (!video->cap._DOS) {
+			printk(KERN_WARNING FW_BUG
+				"ACPI(%s) defines _DOD but not _DOS\n",
+				acpi_device_bid(video->device));
+		}
 		video->flags.multihead = 1;
 		status = 0;
 	}
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/video_detect.c b/drivers/acpi/video_detect.c
index 7cd2b63..bee5e34 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/video_detect.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/video_detect.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ long acpi_is_video_device(struct acpi_device *device)
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Does this device able to support video switching ? */
-	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_get_handle(device->handle, "_DOD", &h_dummy)) &&
+	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_get_handle(device->handle, "_DOD", &h_dummy)) ||
 	    ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_get_handle(device->handle, "_DOS", &h_dummy)))
 		video_caps |= ACPI_VIDEO_OUTPUT_SWITCHING;
 
-- 
1.5.4.3