lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check
Date
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> >> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
> >> confuse a returned level to mean the index.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> current_level = max_level = 100
> >> test_level = 0
> >> returned level = 100
> >>
> >> In this case 100 means the level, not the index, and _BCM failed. But if
> >> the _BCL package is descending, the index of level 0 is also 100, so we
> >> assume _BQC is indexed, when it's not.
> >>
> >> This causes all _BQC calls to return bogus values causing weird behavior
> >> from the user's perspective. For example: xbacklight -set 10; xbacklight
> >> -set 20; would flash to 90% and then slowly down to the desired level
> >> (20).
> >>
> >> The solution is simple; test anything other than the first level (e.g.
> >> 1).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> >
> > Looks reasonable.
> >
> > Aaron, what do you think?
>
> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9
>
> In case you want to take mine and mine needs refresh, please let me know
> and I can do the re-base, thanks.

Well, I prefer simpler, unless there's a good reason to use more complicated.

Why exactly do you think your version is better?

Rafael



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-03 13:41    [W:0.142 / U:8.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site