-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said: | Andy Green wrote: |> Balaji, if you have some interest and time, please implement this 0-255 |> in a patch and give it some small tries down /sys and see what the facts |> are. | | How does that help determine the impact to existing user code?
Code that jut has the literal "64" in it for something that is variable can take this opportunity to get fixed. Also note we are working up at *-tracking on this, so it is not going to be on peoples' devices overnight randomly. Werner's saying incrementing things will break with non 1:1 hardware step and logical backlight level. Is it true, or just more "plausible bullshit"? That is something that can be determined / fixed. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj8gP4ACgkQOjLpvpq7dMptAACgle3FXbvJlovdAw/QV/avXXXP kRUAoI4ogwunjd5QGgat20JC2OwOPSnI =AqdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
