On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:33:29PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > I have no obvious objection on either of these two proposals. > > But one thing to mention is that > > both of these two patches is written on the assumption that the > > brightness levels listed in _BCL method are in ascending order, while > > this is not stated in the ACPI spec. > > Is this a problem? > > The driver already makes that assumption, and it's implicit in the spec. Actually, no, it is not implicit. The spec clearly states that the brightness values will be cycled through the ones given by that list. It is implicit that brightness up actions will cycle through the list in order, and brightness down will cycle through the list in reverse order. If a vendor where to decide to place the most used brightness values in the beginning of the list, and the rest of it later, he would be allowed to do so. Nobody was weird enough to do it yet though, AFAIK. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
