On 10/01/2012 02:47 PM, joeyli wrote:
Hi Alex,
於 一，2012-10-01 於 13:39 +0800，Alex Hung 提到：
Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/video.c | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/video.c b/drivers/acpi/video.c
index 42b226e..eaa9573 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/video.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/video.c
@@ -724,6 +724,10 @@ acpi_video_init_brightness(struct acpi_video_device *device)
if (level_old == br->levels[i])
level = level_old;
}
+
+ if (level == 0)
+ level = br->levels[(br->count) / 2 + 1];
Looks here used the 50% brightness level.
Per comment in video.c, we want set the backlight to max_level when
level_old is invalid:
if (!br->flags._BQC_use_index) {
/*
* Set the backlight to the initial state.
* On some buggy laptops, _BQC returns an uninitialized value
* when invoked for the first time, i.e. level_old is invalid.
* set the backlight to max_level in this case
*/
I think here used max_level to fulfill it, e.g.
+ if (level == 0)
+ level = max_level;
How do you think?
Hi Joey,
I was debating with myself which level to be set, ex. 50%, ~75% or 100%,
and I think 50% *might* be closer to normal use-case (just a personal
guess).
However, "max_level" seems to fit best if we treat the initial zero
brightness in invalid. I can modify it according it that's preferred.
Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers,
Alex Hung
+
goto set_level;
}
Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee
--
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
