On 四, 2012-08-02 at 21:45 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 四, 2012-08-02 at 15:46 +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:45:30AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > >> > On 三, 2012-08-01 at 15:49 +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: > >> > > AMD ACPI interface may overload the standard event > >> > > ACPI_VIDEO_NOTIFY_PROBE (0x81) to signal AMD-specific events. In such > >> > > cases we don't want to send the keypress (KEY_SWITCHVIDEOMODE) to the > >> > > userspace because the user did not press the mode switch key (the > >> > > spurious keypress confuses the DE which usually changes the > >> > > display configuration and messes up a dual-screen setup). > >> > > This patch gives the radeon driver the chance to examine the event and > >> > > block the keypress if the event is an "AMD event". > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > --- > >> > > Any comment from ACPI front? > >> > > > >> > it looks good to me. > >> > But I'm wondering if we can use the following code for ACPI part, which > >> > looks cleaner. > >> > I know this may change the behavior of other events, but in theory, we > >> > should not send any input event if we know something wrong in kernel. > >> > > >> > what do you think? > >> > >> I like it, it's cleaner. > >> I've split the patch in two pieces (one for video, the other for > >> radeon) and adopted your suggestion. > >> > > Great. > > Acked-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > hmm, who should take these two patches? > > I'm happy to take the patches. > > > and which tree the second patch is based on? > > I've got a tree with all the radeon ACPI patches on the acpi_patches > branches of my git tree: > git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux > great. thanks, rui _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
