On 07/07/2013 09:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, the patch is appended. Please have a look and tell me what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Subject: ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects
> Windows 8
>
> According to
On 07/07/2013 09:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
OK, the patch is appended. Please have a look and tell me what you think.
Thanks,
Rafael
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Subject: ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects
Windows 8
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 03:33:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:45:56 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On 07/06/2013 06:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J.
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 03:33:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:45:56 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
On 07/06/2013 06:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:45:56 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 06:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J.
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:45:56 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
On 07/06/2013 06:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On 07/06/2013 06:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew
On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > Windows 8 leaves backlight
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers
> > > rather
> > > than making
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> > than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
> > the Intel
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
> the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
> fact
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
fact that
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers
rather
than making ACPI calls
On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to
On 07/06/2013 06:23 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:27:06PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 08:29:42 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > So to me it looks like the discussion is going in circles a bit, hence let
> > me drop my maintainer-opinion here:
> >
> > 1. Matthew's patch
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 08:29:42 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So to me it looks like the discussion is going in circles a bit, hence let
> me drop my maintainer-opinion here:
>
> 1. Matthew's patch series here looks reasonable, and if it fixes a bunch
> of systems (which it seems to)
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:29:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Aside at the end: If the gnome tool indeed has its own backlight code and
> doesn't just use that as a fallback if the xrandr backligh property isn't
> available, then that's just a serious bug in gnome and should be fixed
> asap.
Hi all,
So to me it looks like the discussion is going in circles a bit, hence let
me drop my maintainer-opinion here:
1. Matthew's patch series here looks reasonable, and if it fixes a bunch
of systems (which it seems to) it has my Ack and imo should go in. If acpi
maintainers can smash their
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:29:15PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 12:19 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The vendor will presumably have tested that backlight control works - if
> > the GPU driver uses the ACPI interface and backlight control is broken,
> > then the vendor would fix it.
>
On 06/15/2013 12:19 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:14:42PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On 06/15/2013 09:38 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Well, Windows 8 will only use the ACPI backlight interface if the GPU
>>> driver decides to, right? So the logic for deciding whether to
On 06/15/2013 12:19 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:14:42PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
On 06/15/2013 09:38 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Well, Windows 8 will only use the ACPI backlight interface if the GPU
driver decides to, right? So the logic for deciding whether to remove
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:29:15PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
On 06/15/2013 12:19 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The vendor will presumably have tested that backlight control works - if
the GPU driver uses the ACPI interface and backlight control is broken,
then the vendor would fix it.
I
Hi all,
So to me it looks like the discussion is going in circles a bit, hence let
me drop my maintainer-opinion here:
1. Matthew's patch series here looks reasonable, and if it fixes a bunch
of systems (which it seems to) it has my Ack and imo should go in. If acpi
maintainers can smash their
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:29:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Aside at the end: If the gnome tool indeed has its own backlight code and
doesn't just use that as a fallback if the xrandr backligh property isn't
available, then that's just a serious bug in gnome and should be fixed
asap. But
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 08:29:42 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
Hi all,
So to me it looks like the discussion is going in circles a bit, hence let
me drop my maintainer-opinion here:
1. Matthew's patch series here looks reasonable, and if it fixes a bunch
of systems (which it seems to) it has
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:27:06PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 08:29:42 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
Hi all,
So to me it looks like the discussion is going in circles a bit, hence let
me drop my maintainer-opinion here:
1. Matthew's patch series here looks
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:14:42PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 09:38 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Well, Windows 8 will only use the ACPI backlight interface if the GPU
> > driver decides to, right? So the logic for deciding whether to remove
> > the ACPI backlight control or not
On 06/15/2013 09:38 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 09:26 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> It's not easy to decide if they work or not sometimes, e.g. I came
>> across a system that claims win8 in ACPI table and has an Intel GPU,
>> while its ACPI video interface also works. With this
On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 09:26 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 01:29 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > How would that work with existing userspace?
>
> User space tool will need to be updated to use this as stated in the
> gist page, I've patches for gsd-backlight-helper and xorg-x11-drv-intel,
On 06/15/2013 01:29 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 14:47 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>
>> What about a priority based solution? We can introduce a new field named
>> priority to backlight_device and instead of calling another module's
>> function like the unregister one here(which
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 14:47 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> What about a priority based solution? We can introduce a new field named
> priority to backlight_device and instead of calling another module's
> function like the unregister one here(which cause unnecessary module
> dependency), we only need
On 06/10/2013 07:01 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
> the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
> fact that it's
On 06/10/2013 07:01 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
fact that it's broken
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 14:47 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
What about a priority based solution? We can introduce a new field named
priority to backlight_device and instead of calling another module's
function like the unregister one here(which cause unnecessary module
dependency), we only need to
On 06/15/2013 01:29 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 14:47 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
What about a priority based solution? We can introduce a new field named
priority to backlight_device and instead of calling another module's
function like the unregister one here(which cause
On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 09:26 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
On 06/15/2013 01:29 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
How would that work with existing userspace?
User space tool will need to be updated to use this as stated in the
gist page, I've patches for gsd-backlight-helper and xorg-x11-drv-intel,
for
On 06/15/2013 09:38 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 09:26 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
It's not easy to decide if they work or not sometimes, e.g. I came
across a system that claims win8 in ACPI table and has an Intel GPU,
while its ACPI video interface also works. With this patch,
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:14:42PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
On 06/15/2013 09:38 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Well, Windows 8 will only use the ACPI backlight interface if the GPU
driver decides to, right? So the logic for deciding whether to remove
the ACPI backlight control or not should be
Radeon probably needs something similar. See attached untested patch.
Alex
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Matthew Garrett
wrote:
> Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
> the
於 日，2013-06-09 於 19:01 -0400，Matthew Garrett 提到：
> Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
> the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
> fact that it's
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 07:01:39PM -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
> the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
>
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 07:01:39PM -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
fact
於 日，2013-06-09 於 19:01 -0400，Matthew Garrett 提到：
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
fact that it's
Radeon probably needs something similar. See attached untested patch.
Alex
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Matthew Garrett
matthew.garr...@nebula.com wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
fact that it's broken on a bunch of machines when the OS claims to
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver for Windows doesn't use the ACPI interface, including the
fact that it's broken on a bunch of machines when the OS claims to
48 matches
Mail list logo
