From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi-video: Add a parameter to not register the backlight sysfs interface Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:13:15 +0200 Message-ID: <55795F3B.4040506@redhat.com> References: <1433838745-8857-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20150609091042.GA1280@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> <557760A5.9000404@redhat.com> <20150611014315.GA26277@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150611014315.GA26277@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Aaron Lu Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ben Skeggs , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Sylvain Pasche , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 11-06-15 03:43, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:54:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 06/09/2015 11:10 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:32:25AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> On some systems acpi-video backlight is broken in the sense that it cannot >>>> control the brightness of the backlight, but it must still be called on >>>> resume to power-up the backlight after resume. >>> >>> All the video module does on resume is a backlight set operation, it >>> can't control backlight but can turn on the screen on resume? Hmm... >>> >>> I'll ask Sylvain to attach acpidump, let's see if there is anything >>> special there. >> >> Ok, lets see what comes out of that. Note in the mean time Sylvain has >> attached his acpidump. > > Thanks. > According to the discussion in the bugzilla place, it doesn't seem we > have any other way to handle this at the moment. > > Acked-by: Aaron Lu Thanks. So that only leaves Jani's remark: > Nitpick, I'd prefer positively named variables, like enable_foo to avoid > the double negative !disable_foo. enable_foo and !enable_foo read much > better. But up to Aaron and friends. I personally believe that having the option named disable_backlight_sysfs_if is better here since I believe that things which are always enabled except on a few broken model laptops the option name should be disable_foo so that people can clearly see in /proc/cmdline / dmesg that the user is passing an option to disable something which is normally enabled. As for the (!disabled) argument, the code in question here actually is: if (disabled) return 0; :) Still if people want me to change the option to a default-on enable_backlight_sysfs_if option I can do a v3... Regards, Hans