On mar., 2013-06-25 at 22:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:10:11PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > On mar., 2013-06-25 at 21:54 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > I agree, we should standardise the behaviour. And the only way we can > > > standardise the behaviour is to leave it up to userspace. > > > > > It's pretty clear we disagree on this and that my opinion won't really > > matter here. But letting userspace handle that just means broken > > functionality for those who have the chance (apparently) to have an ACPI > > backlight interface. > > Which, as we've already established, you don't - Lenovo broke it. Your > Thinkpad claims to have 100 available levels, and most of them don't > work. The kernel has no way of knowing which levels work and which > don't, so leaving this up to the kernel won't actually fix your system > either. I was referring to “standardize the behaviour by leaving up to userspace”. A lot of thinkpads (for example) (all the pre-windows 8 ones) have a perfectly working ACPI backlight interface. Also, if the kernel has no way of knowing which levels work, I fail to see how userspace can do better. I understand that switching to intel_backlight instead of acpi_video0 follows what Windows 8 recommends but for me it looks orthogonal to the fact ACPI methods now have some awkward (Lenovo) or broken (Dell). I mean, it's not the first time firmware people break some kernel behavior. I know it's usually not easy to contact them, but shouldn't those methods be fixed, instead of somehow blindly switching to graphic drivers? -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
