lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] ACPI and power management fixes for v3.11-rc4
Date
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:48:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 04:31:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:12:49 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You forgot this patch:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=3706231332d57072e0e2c0e59975443f3f18e673
> >> >>
> >> >> Or do you think it's fine to boot these machines into a black screen?
> >> >
> >> > Seriously, what's wrong with you?!
> >> >
> >> > I didn't forget about it, I just didn't include it into this particular
> >> > pull request.
> >> >
> >> > And I'm not even sure I will push it for 3.11, because I prefer to revert
> >> > efaa14c for 3.11 if that's necessary to make your broken box work as before.
> >>
> >> The issue happens in more than just "my broken box", and yes,
> >> reverting that patch would help (in more than just my box), in the
> >> sense that at least Linux won't boot into a black screen.
> >>
> >> But the backlight control still wouldn't work, as it hasn't worked
> >> since v3.7, possibly in many ASUS laptops, for that you need more than
> >> just reverting efaa14c.
> >
> > Yes, last time it worked in 3.6 and in particular it doesn't work in 3.10.
> > My current goal is bring things back to the 3.10 state first, possibly without
> > introducing any new problems, because we're kind of late in the cycle.
> > That's better done by reverting stuff known to have introduced problems in
> > the first place and not by doing things that may introduce more of them.
> >
> > And your blacklisting patch has potential to introduce problems. Your goal is
> > to bring backlight control to the 3.6 state on that particular machine, but
> > the blacklist is done at the *system* level and very well may affect more
> > things than just backlight. You may not see any problems resulting from it
> > and you may not care even if there are some, but other users of it may use
> > different user space, for example, and may see problems that you're not seeing.
> >
> > That's why I'd very much prefer to do the revert at this point.
>
> Yes, that's fine, either the revert, or the patch I mentioned, or
> something else, but something has to be done, and it was better to do
> it in v3.11-rc4 than in v3.11-rc5, because that change itself can
> cause further problems.

A revert can be done in -rc5 just fine. If we don't have a working fix this
week, I'll do the revert.

> >> > Well, perhaps I just won't push it at all so that you actually can go and
> >> > complain to Linus about that ...
> >>
> >> That is very responsible from you. Screw the users, right?
> >
> > No, that's not my goal, sorry for disappointing you.
> >
> > The problem is that I'm not really convinced about the validity of the
> > blacklisting approach to begin with. As I said, the blacklisting is done
> > on the system level and the goal is to work around backlight control problems.
> > That sounds like a sledgehammer approach to me, which I don't really like.
> > If the blacklisting was more targeted, done at the video driver level etc.,
> > I wouldn't really have any concerns about it, but that's not the case.
> >
> > And since people evidently could live for over 6 months with the backlight
> > control problems, maybe they'll survive some more time still and allow us to
> > find a better approach?
>
> They probably can survive without Linux at all, that doesn't mean we
> are doing our job.
>
> Let's do a though experiment, let's say you are right, and they can
> survive the 6 months it would take you to find the "perfect" solution,
> say in v3.13. What's wrong with having a partial solution in v3.12? If
> the blacklisting doesn't work properly (there's absolutely no evidence
> for that), then you revert it on v3.12.1.
>
> What's wrong with that approach?

If the blacklisting leads to problems, they may not be reported in the 3.12
time frame, but much later. For example because people won't realize that
the problems are caused by the blacklisting until much much later. And then
we'll be in a spot where whatever we do will break things for someone.

And we had situations like that in the past, which is the source of my concern.
You obviously don't have that experience, or you won't be so eager to inflict
the blacklisting on everyone.

Anyway, as you know, but conveniently don't mention, I asked some experienced
people for opinions about that. If they agree with you, we will add the
blacklist. If they don't, we won't add it.

Rafael



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-03 14:01    [W:0.062 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site