On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 03:59:26 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 01:57:55 PM Aaron Lu wrote: > >> On 07/30/2013 01:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote: > >> > On 07/30/2013 11:44 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> On 07/30/2013 03:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> >>>> Since v3.7 the acpi backlight driver doesn't work at all on this machine > >> >>>> because presumably the ACPI code contains stub code when Windows 8 OSI is > >> >>>> reported. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The commit ea45ea7 (in v3.11-rc2) tried to fix this problem by using the intel > >> >>>> backlight driver, however, on this machine it turns the backlight completely > >> >>>> off when it reaches level 0%, after which the user might have a lot trouble > >> >>>> trying to bring it back. > >> >>> > >> >>> What do you mean by a lot of trouble? If you press hotkey to increase > >> >>> backlight brightness level, does it work? > >> >> > >> >> I guess so, *if* there is indeed a user-space power manager handling > >> >> that, *and* the keyboard has such keys, *or* the user has set custom > >> >> hotkeys. > >> > > >> > Right, for a GUI environment this may not be a big problem(user uses Fn > >> > key to decrease brightness level and then hit the black screen, it's > >> > natural he will use Fn key to increase brightness level). > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> If so, the screen should not > >> >>> be black any more, it's not that user has to blindly enter some command > >> >>> to get out of the black screen. > >> >>> > >> >>> And I'm not sure if this is a bug of intel_backlight(setting a low level > >> >>> makes the screen almost off), I see different models with different > >> >>> vendors having this behavior. > >> >> > >> >> I mean, the screen is completely off, I cannot see absolutely > >> >> anything. I don't see this behavior with the ACPI backlight driver, > >> >> nor do I see that in Windows 7. > >> >> > >> >>> If this is deemed a bug, then I'm afraid > >> >>> intel_backlight interface is useless for a lot of systems...perhaps we > >> >>> can only say, intel_backlight's interpretation of low levels are > >> >>> different with ACPI video's, and that's probably why its type is named > >> >>> as raw :-) > >> >> > >> >> Well, a bug is defined as unexpected behavior -- as a user, if I'm > >> >> changing the brightness of the screen, I certainly don't expect the > >> >> screen to turn off, and I think that's the expectation from most > >> >> people. It's the first time I see something like that. > >> > > >> > I agree this is kind of un-expected. At the same time, this seems to be > >> > the normal behavior for intel_backlight. I don't know what the correct > >> > thing to do here if this is something we want to avoid - modify intel > >> > backlight handling code not to set too low value or change the user > >> > space tool not to set a too low value if they are interacting with a > >> > raw type interface. Neither of them sounds cool... Or, users may get > >> > used to it, I for example, don't find this to be very annoying, but > >> > maybe I'm already used to it. > >> > >> BTW, for the complete screen off problem, I don't see there is anything > >> wrong with it from code's point of view. It's not that there is an error > >> in code or this is a broken hardware that caused the screen off when > >> setting a very low or 0 brightness level, it is simply the expected > >> behavior of what this interface can provide. It can really set the > >> brightness level to minimum(zero) or maximum. Don't get me wrong, I > >> didn't mean this is a good user experience, I don't know that. I just > >> don't think this is a program bug, and I don't know if this should be > >> fixed or not - obviously this interface did what it is asked to do, > >> correctly. > > > > Precisely, user space asks for 0 and the kernel delivers. > > > > And there are reasons why 0 should be "screen off", like power management > > (when you have a policy to dim the screen completely after a period of > > inactivity, for example). > > There is another interface the turn the screen off. > > If 0 turns the screen off with the intel driver, 0 should turn the > screen off with the ACPI driver, having inconsistent behavior > depending on which driver is used is a bug. The ACPI driver simply exposes and interface to interact with the AML methods in the BIOS directly. Yes, this is a mistake and shouldn't be designed this way. However, incidentally, this makes backlight control work on your machine. Anyway, we need all backlight drivers to work consistently and don't tempt me to rip the ACPI driver entirely from the kernel for what it's worth. Yes, that will break backlight on your system and *then* you can complain to Linus if you wish. This is the last message I'm sending in this thread. Kind regards, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
