linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Rationalise ACPI backlight implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080122114605.GA23983@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:05 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	len.brown@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rationalise ACPI backlight implementation

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:33:29PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:

> I have no obvious objection on either of these two proposals.
> But one thing to mention is that
> both of these two patches is written on the assumption that the
> brightness levels listed in _BCL method are in ascending order, while
> this is not stated in the ACPI spec.
> Is this a problem?

The driver already makes that assumption, and it's implicit in the spec.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/