On Mon, 15 May 2017, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Jani Nikula > <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, 15 May 2017, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I'll answer everything in the other thread, where there are slightly >>> more other points raised: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/15/10 >> >> If you are discussing changes impacting i915, please keep intel-gfx list >> in the loop. >> > > I can add intel-gfx to the other thread if you want, but this will IMO > just add more noise to your list. > The question is whether or not the kernel should provide a fake state > for the _LID acpi call, and until we reach an agreement on how to > handle things, there is no point changing the currently working code > in i915. Fair enough. > It is true that there is an issue in i915 regarding the fact that > intel_lid_notify() doesn't use the provided value but calls > acpi_lid_open(), but this is something that can be solved in > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100923, when the > situation clarifies. The snarky reply here might be that we're just following the documentation of acpi_lid_notifier_register(), acpi_lid_open(), and friends. ;) BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
