On 10/10/2013 12:29 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 08:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 08, 2013 02:39:58 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>>>> +bool backlight_device_registered(enum backlight_type type)
>>>> +{
>>>> + bool found = false;
>>>> + struct backlight_device *bd;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_lock(&bd_list_mutex);
>>>> + list_for_each_entry(bd, &bd_list_head, entry) {
>>>> + if (bd->props.type == type) {
>>>> + found = true;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Isn't it useful to be able to register more than one backlight device of the
>>> same type sometimes?
>>
>> I think so for some kind of computers. OTOH, the above function should
>> be enough for the problem we are solving here, if someday we need to
>> differentiate, we can enhance the code then.
>
> Since both Baytrail and Haswell already have two backlight PWMs, this
> may be needed sooner than you think. But we shouldn't let that block
Do we need to differentiate which backlight PWM is registered to decide
if ACPI video backlight interface should be skipped? My understanding is
no.
Thanks,
Aaron
> fixing the more urgent issue we have now. So I'm fine with this. It
> doesn't prevent one from registering more than one device of the same
> type anyway.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
