On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> It is already broken in v3.11-rc3, in fact I just booted that to try
> it out and it booted with the screen completely black (fortunately I
> knew exactly what to type to change that).
>
> Also, each time I change the
> backlight level fr
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 10:07 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2013 08:11 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Yes, that will break ba
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > An interface that describes reality is better than one that doesn't. But
>> > hey, feel free to disagree and p
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > An interface that describes reality is better than one that doesn't. But
> > hey, feel free to disagree and post a patch for the ABI docs.
>
> An interface that is usefu
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:37:04PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > If we can't make an interface 100% consistent, we shouldn't pretend that
>> > the interface is 100% consisten
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:37:04PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If we can't make an interface 100% consistent, we shouldn't pretend that
> > the interface is 100% consistent. We can't, and so we don't. Setting a
> > backlight value of
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:07:57PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> If we can make the software behave consistently for 99% of the
>> machines out there instead of only 90%, that's better.
>
> If we can't make an interface 100% consistent,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:07:57PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> If we can make the software behave consistently for 99% of the
> machines out there instead of only 90%, that's better.
If we can't make an interface 100% consistent, we shouldn't pretend that
the interface is 100% consistent. We
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:46:04PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> That doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and there *is*
>> actually a way. The fact that you don't want to go there doesn't mean
>> it's not there.
>
> A quirk
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:46:04PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> That doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and there *is*
> actually a way. The fact that you don't want to go there doesn't mean
> it's not there.
A quirk list will be incomplete, and as such there's no way to guarantee
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:32:47AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > There's no mechanism for an OS to know whether or not a firmware
>> > implementation will actually turn
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:32:47AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > There's no mechanism for an OS to know whether or not a firmware
> > implementation will actually turn the backlight off at 0, so there's no
> > way the OS can define th
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:11:06PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> No, the ACPI driver is exposing a backlight interface, which has a
>> defined stable API.
>
> From the ACPI spec:
>
> 'The OEM may define the number 0 as "Zero brightne
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:11:06PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> No, the ACPI driver is exposing a backlight interface, which has a
> defined stable API.
>From the ACPI spec:
'The OEM may define the number 0 as "Zero brightness" that can mean to
turn off the lighting (e.g. LCD panel backligh
On 07/31/2013 10:07 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On 07/31/2013 08:11 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
> If 0 turns the screen off with the intel driver, 0 should turn the
> sc
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 04:59 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> There is another interface the turn the screen off.
>>
>> If 0 turns the screen off with the intel driver, 0 should turn the
>> screen off with the ACPI driver, having inconsistent behavior
>> de
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 08:11 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
If 0 turns the screen off with the intel driver, 0 should turn the
screen off with the ACPI driver, having inconsistent beha
On 07/31/2013 04:59 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 01:57:55 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On 07/30/2013 01:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11
On 07/31/2013 08:11 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>>> If 0 turns the screen off with the intel driver, 0 should turn the
>>> screen off with the ACPI driver, having inconsistent behavior
>>> depending on which driver is used is a bug.
>>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> If 0 turns the screen off with the intel driver, 0 should turn the
>> screen off with the ACPI driver, having inconsistent behavior
>> depending on which driver is used is a bug.
>
> The ACPI driver simply exposes and interface to inter
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 03:59:26 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 01:57:55 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> >> On 07/30/2013 01:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> >> > On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Ju
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 01:57:55 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 01:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> > On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> >>> On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM,
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 01:57:55 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 01:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> >>> On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driv
On 07/30/2013 01:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
because presumably t
On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
>>> because presumably the ACPI code contains stub code when Windows 8
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
>> because presumably the ACPI code contains stub code when Windows 8 OSI is
>> reported.
>>
>> The commit ea45ea7 (in v3.
On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
> because presumably the ACPI code contains stub code when Windows 8 OSI is
> reported.
>
> The commit ea45ea7 (in v3.11-rc2) tried to fix this problem by using the intel
> ba
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 29, 2013 03:22:56 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Monday, July 29, 2013 02:20:58 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn'
On Monday, July 29, 2013 03:22:56 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, July 29, 2013 02:20:58 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
> >> because presumably the ACPI c
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 29, 2013 02:20:58 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
>> because presumably the ACPI code contains stub code when Windows 8 OSI is
>> reported.
>>
>> The c
On Monday, July 29, 2013 02:20:58 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine
> because presumably the ACPI code contains stub code when Windows 8 OSI is
> reported.
>
> The commit ea45ea7 (in v3.11-rc2) tried to fix this problem by using t
31 matches
Mail list logo
