On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 四, 2012-08-02 at 15:46 +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:45:30AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: >> > On 三, 2012-08-01 at 15:49 +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: >> > > AMD ACPI interface may overload the standard event >> > > ACPI_VIDEO_NOTIFY_PROBE (0x81) to signal AMD-specific events. In such >> > > cases we don't want to send the keypress (KEY_SWITCHVIDEOMODE) to the >> > > userspace because the user did not press the mode switch key (the >> > > spurious keypress confuses the DE which usually changes the >> > > display configuration and messes up a dual-screen setup). >> > > This patch gives the radeon driver the chance to examine the event and >> > > block the keypress if the event is an "AMD event". >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > --- >> > > Any comment from ACPI front? >> > > >> > it looks good to me. >> > But I'm wondering if we can use the following code for ACPI part, which >> > looks cleaner. >> > I know this may change the behavior of other events, but in theory, we >> > should not send any input event if we know something wrong in kernel. >> > >> > what do you think? >> >> I like it, it's cleaner. >> I've split the patch in two pieces (one for video, the other for >> radeon) and adopted your suggestion. >> > Great. > Acked-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > hmm, who should take these two patches? I'm happy to take the patches. > and which tree the second patch is based on? I've got a tree with all the radeon ACPI patches on the acpi_patches branches of my git tree: git://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux Alex > > thanks, > rui > -- 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
