From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:35:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5201CE7A.40804@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0EwO11to-nfjhKkUidQKe6h=y0o-V7gYmF_mJeKhMRtQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/04/2013 10:19 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>>> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
>>> synthetic case than what you patch does, which will also make _BQC
>>> work. That can be discussed later though, the one-liner is simple, and
>>> it works.
>>
>> So, let's assume that the one-liner goes into 3.11 and work further with that
>> assumption.
>>
>> How would you address the sythetic case (on top of the one-liner)?
>
> I would write and read two values instead of one. The code is trying
> to check if _BQC is always returning the maximum, and if you try with
The code is introduced by commit a50188dae3089dcd15a6ae793528c157680891f1
where the broken system will always return a constant value for _BQC,
either 0 or 100. So the commit at that time tries to not test a maximum
value for the quirk.
Then we have the ASUS NV56Z problem and its problem is explained in:
https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9
And due to its reverse order of _BCL, testing the minimum value is not
good either.
So if the two values test is going to be adopted, I would suggest avoid
testing edge values. But then I'm not sure if it is still worth to test
two values instead of one.
> two values you can be absolutely certain if that's happening or not;
> it doesn't even matter which values you choose. Even in the synthetic
> case that only has two values the check would work correctly and
> detect that _BQC works correctly (or not).
>
> In my machine I think the issue is slightly different, I think _BCM is
> failing, at least until enabling the _DOS thing, but at the end of the
> day it's the same thing for the check; _BQC is always returning the
> same value, and the code above will find that out, regardless of which
> values are tested.
If you think _BCM fails before _DOS and that makes acpi_video_bqc_quirk
not correct, I think you can call acpi_video_bus_start_devices before the
acpi_video_bus_get_devices in acpi_video_bus_add to make _BCM work before
we do the quirk test and then add some debug prints in acpi_video_bqc_quirk
and add some test levels to check it out.
-Aaron
>
> For my particular machine though, I think it's more interesting to
> find out why _BCM is failing before _DOS, and why efaa14c made it
> work. If that is actually the case.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-07 4:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-02 19:37 [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check Felipe Contreras
2013-08-02 23:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 1:04 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 1:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 1:07 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 1:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 1:30 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 8:14 ` Aaron Lu
2013-08-03 11:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 20:24 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 21:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 22:20 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 22:37 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04 1:47 ` Aaron Lu
2013-08-04 6:54 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04 14:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-04 14:08 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04 1:18 ` Aaron Lu
2013-08-04 6:42 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04 14:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-04 14:19 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 14:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-05 14:41 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-07 4:35 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5201CE7A.40804@gmail.com \
--to=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).