From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi-video: Add a parameter to not register the backlight sysfs interface Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:10:39 +0300 Message-ID: <87mw065wls.fsf@intel.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> <55795F3B.4040506@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55795F3B.4040506@redhat.com> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hans de Goede , Aaron Lu Cc: Sylvain Pasche , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Ben Skeggs List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Hans de Goede wrote: > 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. Fair enough. > > 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... I'm not insisting. BR, Jani. > > Regards, > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center