public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com>,
	Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@novell.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects Windows 8
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:45:19 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87hadrycf4.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130911013206.GA556@mint-spring.sh.intel.com>

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> It is possible the i915 driver decides not to register a backlight
> interface for the graphics card for some reason(memory allocation failed
> or it knows the native control does not work on this card or whatever),
> so I would prefer let i915 tell ACPI video that it has registered a
> native backlight control interface as Jani has said.
>
> Then together with the video.use_native_backlight, we can register or
> not register ACPI video backlight interface accordingly. Or rather, we
> can simply not register ACPI video backlight interface for Win8 systems
> as long as i915 indicates that it has native backlight control(if the
> native control is broken, i915 should fix it or blacklist it so that
> i915 will not indicate it has native backlight control and ACPI video
> will continue to register its own).
>
> How does this sound?

Sounds good to me.

Before plunging forward, have you observed any difference between the
boot modes? We have reports [1] that the backlight behaviour is
different with UEFI vs. UEFI+CSM or legacy boot. So I'm wondering if the
acpi_gbl_osi_data >= ACPI_OSI_WIN_8 check in patch 2/2 is the whole
story.

Further, if we tell the BIOS we're Windows 8 to use the tested BIOS code
paths, what guarantees do we have of UEFI+CSM or legacy boots working?

BR,
Jani.


[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47941#c96


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

  reply	other threads:[~2013-09-11  8:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-09-09  8:37 [PATCH 0/2] Rework ACPI video driver Aaron Lu
2013-09-09  8:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI / video: seperate backlight control and event interface Aaron Lu
2013-09-10  5:23   ` Igor Gnatenko
2013-09-09  8:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects Windows 8 Aaron Lu
2013-09-09  9:32   ` Daniel Vetter
2013-09-09 12:16     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-09 15:21       ` Daniel Vetter
2013-09-09 15:38         ` Matthew Garrett
2013-09-09 20:23         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 13:53           ` Jani Nikula
2013-09-10 13:56             ` Matthew Garrett
2013-09-10 14:21               ` Jani Nikula
2013-09-10 14:21                 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-09-10 19:23             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-11  1:32               ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-11  8:45                 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2013-09-11  8:45                   ` Matthew Garrett
2013-09-11  9:09                     ` Yves-Alexis Perez
2013-09-11 10:29                     ` Jani Nikula
2013-09-11 10:30                       ` Matthew Garrett
2013-09-12  2:26                   ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-10  6:30     ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-09 11:44   ` Igor Gnatenko
2013-09-10  3:27     ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-10  5:13       ` Igor Gnatenko
2013-09-10  5:16         ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-10  5:22           ` Igor Gnatenko
2013-09-10  5:42             ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-10  5:23   ` Igor Gnatenko

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=87hadrycf4.fsf@intel.com \
    --to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=corsac@debian.org \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
    --cc=i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jlee@novell.com \
    --cc=joeyli.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=seth.forshee@canonical.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