On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:58:48AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 10:01 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If you want the actual brightness, why aren't you reading
> > actual_brightness?
> >
> right, that's the problem.
> because IMO, we don't need the actual_brightness any more. :)
> And if you agree that bd->props.brightness doesn't reflect the actual
> brightness, we can see that
Brightness and actual_brightness have different semantics, and
maintaining that difference is worthwhile.
> if (bd->props.brightness != brightness) {
> bd->props.brightness = brightness;
> backlight_update_status(bd);
> }
> doesn't make sense because "bd->props.brightness != brightness" doesn't
> mean anything.
I agree that this doesn't seem like a meaningful check. For setups where
brightness change is an expensive operation, this could be done in the
driver rather than the core?
> But if bd->props.brightness does reflect the actual brightness, then do
> we need "actual_brightness" any more?
I think maintaining "brightness" as "user requested brightness" is
sensible, for situations like Richard described.
Patch looks good to me.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
