[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87hadrycf4.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:45:19 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
"intel-gfx\@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel\@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
"Lee\, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@...il.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@...ell.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects Windows 8
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.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
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists