於 一，2012-10-01 於 17:11 +0800，Alex Hung 提到：
> On 10/01/2012 04:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
> > 於 一，2012-10-01 於 15:17 +0800，joeyli 提到：
> >> 於 一，2012-10-01 於 15:03 +0800，Alex Hung 提到：
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> hm.... I have a question for what's the BIOS's problem that causes
> >> 'level == 0'?
> >> That implied the issue machine's max_level is 0?
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Set the level to maximum and check if _BQC uses indexed value
> >> */
> >> result = acpi_video_device_lcd_set_level(device, max_level); /* write max_level purposely, then read level back, compare them */
> >> ...
> >> result = acpi_video_device_lcd_get_level_current(device, &level, 0);
> >> ...
> >> br->flags._BQC_use_index = (level == max_level ? 0 : 1);
> >> if (!br->flags._BQC_use_index) { /* _BQC_use_index is 0 will run into if, means level == max_level */
> >>
> >> So, looks the 'level == max_level == 0' when level_old is invalid.
> >>
> >> Just wonder what's defect of BIOS (in _BCL?) causes problem.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Sorry for my misunderstood!
> >
> > I think that's possible the level_old is 0 and there have a 0 value in
> > the return package from _BCL.
> >
>
> Yes, there is nothing wrong with _BCL and _BQC except that _BQC returns
> a zero initially.
>
> > Could you please share the _BCL in DSDT from issue machine? Does there
> > have 0 value in _BCL?
>
> _BCL returns below data and there is a zero in the list.
>
> [ 744.572289] Brightness[0] = 100
> [ 744.572293] Brightness[1] = 50
> [ 744.572295] Brightness[2] = 0
> [ 744.572297] Brightness[3] = 10
> [ 744.572299] Brightness[4] = 20
> [ 744.572301] Brightness[5] = 30
> [ 744.572303] Brightness[6] = 40
> [ 744.572305] Brightness[7] = 50
> [ 744.572306] Brightness[8] = 60
> [ 744.572308] Brightness[9] = 70
> [ 744.572310] Brightness[10] = 80
> [ 744.572312] Brightness[11] = 90
> [ 744.572314] Brightness[12] = 100
>
> The below is the complete _BCL for references
>
> Method (_BCL, 0, Serialized)
> {
> Name (_T_0, Zero)
> If (_OSI ("NOT_WINP_KEY"))
> {
> While (One)
> {
> Store (LCDD, _T_0)
> If (LEqual (_T_0, 0x303CAF06))
> {
> Return (AUOL)
> }
> Else
> {
> If (LEqual (_T_0, 0x1475AE0D))
> {
> Return (CMIL)
> }
> Else
> {
> If (LEqual (_T_0, 0x033FE430))
> {
> Return (LGDL)
> }
> Else
> {
> If (LEqual (_T_0, 0x3942A34C))
> {
> Return (SAML)
> }
> Else
> {
> Return (DEFL)
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> Break
> }
> }
> Else
> {
> Return (Package (0x0D)
> {
> 0x64,
> 0x32,
> Zero,
Yes, have Zero value in _BCL return package.
> 0x0A,
> 0x14,
> 0x1E,
> 0x28,
> 0x32,
> 0x3C,
> 0x46,
> 0x50,
> 0x5A,
> 0x64
> })
> }
> }
>
>
According to the above information, it make sense now!
Thank 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
