On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 13:29 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett <matthew.garr...@nebula.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 11:45 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > We have no evidence of Windows behaving differently based on the exposed
> > firmware type.
>
> By "behaving differently", do you mean internally adapting to the boot
> mode, or exhibiting different behaviour to the user?
As far as backlight control goes, both.
> We have evidence of the firmware behaving differently (VBT, backlight)
> based on the boot mode, all else being equal. We don't adapt to that,
> and we fail. I don't know if we should adapt, or do things differently
> altogether. I don't even know if Windows 8 works on all boot modes on
> the machines in question.
Sure, but Windows knows nothing about VBT or opregion-backed backlight
control. That's up to the Intel driver.
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garr...@nebula.com>
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
