On Saturday 15 November 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 08:05:04PM +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > On Saturday 15 November 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Right. But that doesn't mean they're competing, as such. If you set the > > > brightness via toshiba_acpi > > > > I probably have problems with expressing myself as non-native English > > speaker. > > > > I am not interested in setting values via echoing into sysfs file. I > > am interested in my desktop brightness control working out of the box. > > And desktop driver control has no way to select, which of two sysfs > > files to use. Nor do I understand why I have to create this problem > > of selecting right driver when I already have possibility to avoid it. > > > > If you think exposing both knobs is non-issue, why are all those patches > > for other vendor drivers included in the kernel in the first place? > > Because in some of those cases, the ACPI and vendor function are > implemented in different ways that can then get out of sync with each > other. As a result, you can get garbage information. If the values in > your two backlight interfaces are always sane, then there's no inherent > need to hide one of them. THE VALUE IN MY TWO BACKLIGHT INTERFACES ARE NOT THE SAME. I said this many times already. What exactly is not clear in this sentence? > The kernel exposes the available functionality > and userland then determines the policy used to choose one over the > other. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
