Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755544Ab3HCBHl (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:07:41 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]:37828 "EHLO mail-la0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753217Ab3HCBHi (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:07:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1689760.eY2GhS7V2b@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1375472229-1563-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <3682340.ddGL4l7l22@vostro.rjw.lan> <1689760.eY2GhS7V2b@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:07:37 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check From: Felipe Contreras To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Aaron Lu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Zhang Rui Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1972 Lines: 49 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, 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 >> > >> > Looks reasonable. >> > >> > Aaron, what do you think? >> >> Aaron has a similar patch does many more checks. I think we should add >> more checks, but I think those should go into a separate patch. >> >> This patch alone fixes a real problem, which is rather urgent to fix, >> and I did it this way so it's trivial to review and merge. > > And I still would like to know the Aaron's opinion, what's wrong with that? Nothing. What's wrong with my clarification? -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/