At Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:58:57 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > OK, then perhaps a better fix is to change the check to be equivalent
> > with pineview, as you mentioned in the original post. The handling of
> > bit 0 for old chips was lost during the
On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> OK, then perhaps a better fix is to change the check to be equivalent
> with pineview, as you mentioned in the original post. The handling of
> bit 0 for old chips was lost during the refactoring of backlight code
> since 2.6.37.
>
> Does the patch
On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
OK, then perhaps a better fix is to change the check to be equivalent
with pineview, as you mentioned in the original post. The handling of
bit 0 for old chips was lost during the refactoring of backlight code
since 2.6.37.
Does the patch below
At Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:58:57 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
OK, then perhaps a better fix is to change the check to be equivalent
with pineview, as you mentioned in the original post. The handling of
bit 0 for old chips was lost during the
At Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:03:46 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > [Added Chris to Cc]
> >
> > At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:24:09 +0100,
> > Daniel Mack wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Takashi,
> >>
> >> On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>> At Thu, 10 Nov 2011
On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> [Added Chris to Cc]
>
> At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:24:09 +0100,
> Daniel Mack wrote:
>>
>> Hi Takashi,
>>
>> On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>> At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
>>> Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM,
[Added Chris to Cc]
At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:24:09 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
>
> Hi Takashi,
>
> On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
> > Daniel Mack wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> >>> Didn't get any response yet, hence
[Added Chris to Cc]
At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:24:09 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi Takashi,
On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for
On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
[Added Chris to Cc]
At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:24:09 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi Takashi,
On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Didn't get
At Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:03:46 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
[Added Chris to Cc]
At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:24:09 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi Takashi,
On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
Daniel
Hi Takashi,
On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
> Daniel Mack wrote:
>>
>> On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>> Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
>>
>> Nobody, really?
>>
>> This is a rather annoying
Hi Takashi,
On 11/10/2011 04:39 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
Nobody, really?
This is a rather annoying regression, as
At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
>
> On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
>
> Nobody, really?
>
> This is a rather annoying regression, as touching the brightness keys
> appearantly switches
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
Nobody, really?
This is a rather annoying regression, as touching the brightness keys
appearantly switches off the whole machine. I'm sure this is trivial to
fix, I just don't
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
Nobody, really?
This is a rather annoying regression, as touching the brightness keys
appearantly switches off the whole machine. I'm sure this is trivial to
fix, I just don't have
At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0100,
Daniel Mack wrote:
On 11/08/2011 01:57 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
Nobody, really?
This is a rather annoying regression, as touching the brightness keys
appearantly switches off the
Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
On 11/04/2011 03:36 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> I'm facing a bug on a Samsung X20 notebook which features an i915
> chipset (output of 'lspci -v' attached).
>
> The effect is that setting the backlight to odd values causes the
Didn't get any response yet, hence copying LKML for a broader audience.
On 11/04/2011 03:36 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
I'm facing a bug on a Samsung X20 notebook which features an i915
chipset (output of 'lspci -v' attached).
The effect is that setting the backlight to odd values causes the value
Hi,
I'm facing a bug on a Samsung X20 notebook which features an i915
chipset (output of 'lspci -v' attached).
The effect is that setting the backlight to odd values causes the value
to be misinterpreted. Harald Hoyer (cc:) had the same thing on a Netbook
(I don't recall which model it was).
Hi,
I'm facing a bug on a Samsung X20 notebook which features an i915
chipset (output of 'lspci -v' attached).
The effect is that setting the backlight to odd values causes the value
to be misinterpreted. Harald Hoyer (cc:) had the same thing on a Netbook
(I don't recall which model it
20 matches
Mail list logo
