On Friday, May 26, 2017 05:39:53 PM Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On May 25 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That is correct. This patch I
On Friday, May 26, 2017 05:39:53 PM Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On May 25 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That is correct. This patch I
On May 25 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> > >> >
> > >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
> > >> > professional
> > >> >
On May 25 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> > >> >
> > >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
> > >> > professional
> > >> >
Hi,
> >> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
> >> >> > professional
> >> >> > laptops that expect the LID switch to be reported accurately.
> >> >>
> >> >> And from a user's
Hi,
> >> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
> >> >> > professional
> >> >> > laptops that expect the LID switch to be reported accurately.
> >> >>
> >> >> And from a user's
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
>> >> >
>> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
>> >> >
>> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
>> >>
Hi Rafael,
On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> >> >
> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
> >> > professional
> >> > laptops that expect the LID switch to be
Hi Rafael,
On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> >> >
> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for
> >> > professional
> >> > laptops that expect the LID switch to be
Hi Lv,
[thank you Peter for jumping in the thread]
Just a few precisions regarding questions you asked:
On May 17 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
[stripped]
> > [User space tools] *are* correct.
> > They are following the exported ACPI documentation
>
> I doubt. In ACPI world, Windows is
Hi Lv,
[thank you Peter for jumping in the thread]
Just a few precisions regarding questions you asked:
On May 17 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
[stripped]
> > [User space tools] *are* correct.
> > They are following the exported ACPI documentation
>
> I doubt. In ACPI world, Windows is
Hi Lv
> > Yes, it's called a quirk. And the good practice is to register those
> > quirks and make them available to everybody. Being in hwdb in user space
> > or in acpi/button in kernel space doesn't matter, we need them.
>
> I have no objections but concerns related to the combination of
Hi Lv
> > Yes, it's called a quirk. And the good practice is to register those
> > quirks and make them available to everybody. Being in hwdb in user space
> > or in acpi/button in kernel space doesn't matter, we need them.
>
> I have no objections but concerns related to the combination of
Hi, Benjamin
> > What's that?
> > I mean, the bad faith?
> I already explained 4 times why we need to revert these two patches and
> why we need to keep 'method'. And you keep answering with long emails
> that you would rather not. I call it bad faith, sorry.
The 4 times explanations didn't
Hi, Benjamin
> > What's that?
> > I mean, the bad faith?
> I already explained 4 times why we need to revert these two patches and
> why we need to keep 'method'. And you keep answering with long emails
> that you would rather not. I call it bad faith, sorry.
The 4 times explanations didn't
On May 16 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi, Benjamin
>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > For example, such a hwdb entry is:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > libinput:name:*Lid
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Switch*:dmi:*svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurface3:*
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
On May 16 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi, Benjamin
>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > For example, such a hwdb entry is:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > libinput:name:*Lid
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Switch*:dmi:*svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurface3:*
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
Hi, Benjamin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > For example, such a hwdb entry is:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > libinput:name:*Lid
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Switch*:dmi:*svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurface3:*
> > > > > >> >> > > > > LIBINPUT_ATTR_LID_SWITCH_RELIABILITY=write_open
> > > > > >> >> Well, if it worked
Hi, Benjamin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > For example, such a hwdb entry is:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > libinput:name:*Lid
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Switch*:dmi:*svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurface3:*
> > > > > >> >> > > > > LIBINPUT_ATTR_LID_SWITCH_RELIABILITY=write_open
> > > > > >> >> Well, if it worked
On May 16 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> > [mailto:linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Zheng,
> > Lv
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> &g
On May 16 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> > [mailto:linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Zheng,
> > Lv
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> &g
Hi,
> From: linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Zheng,
> Lv
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> Hi, Guys
>
> > From: Be
Hi,
> From: linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Zheng,
> Lv
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> Hi, Guys
>
> > From: Be
Hi, Guys
> From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017
Hi, Guys
> From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017
gt; From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default
> >> >> > > behavior to lid_init_state=open"
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
t; On May 12 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >> On Friday, May 12, 2017 02:36:20 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> >> >> > Hi,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
>
May 12 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> On Friday, May 12, 2017 02:36:20 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
>> >> &
, May 12, 2017 02:36:20 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
>> >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default
>> >>
Zheng, Lv wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default
> >> > > behavior to lid_init_state=open"
> >>
t;> >
> >> > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default
> >> > > behavior to lid_init_state=open"
> >> > >
> >> > > On Ma
ssoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
>> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior
>> > > to lid_init_state=open"
>> > >
>> > > On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>
>> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior
>> > > to lid_init_state=open"
>> > >
>> > > On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > >
ault behavior
> > > to lid_init_state=open"
> > >
> > > On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
&g
ault behavior
> > > to lid_init_state=open"
> > >
> > > On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
&g
On Friday, May 12, 2017 02:36:20 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> > lid_init_state=open"
> >
> >
On Friday, May 12, 2017 02:36:20 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> > lid_init_state=open"
> >
> >
Hi,
> From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Fr
Hi,
> From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Fr
On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> > lid_init_state=open"
> >
> > This reverts c
On May 11 2017 or thereabouts, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> > lid_init_state=open"
> >
> > This reverts c
Hi,
> From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> This reverts commit 77e9a4aa9de10cc1418bf9a892366988802a8025.
>
> Even if the method impl
Hi,
> From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com]
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
> lid_init_state=open"
>
> This reverts commit 77e9a4aa9de10cc1418bf9a892366988802a8025.
>
> Even if the method impl
This reverts commit 77e9a4aa9de10cc1418bf9a892366988802a8025.
Even if the method implementation can be buggy on some platform,
the "open" choice is worse. It breaks docking stations basically
and there is no way to have a user-space hwdb to fix that.
On the contrary, it's rather easy in
This reverts commit 77e9a4aa9de10cc1418bf9a892366988802a8025.
Even if the method implementation can be buggy on some platform,
the "open" choice is worse. It breaks docking stations basically
and there is no way to have a user-space hwdb to fix that.
On the contrary, it's rather easy in
46 matches
Mail list logo