Re: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> 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 <rjw@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/