On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 12:11 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2013 07:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>> Commit 1a7c618 (ACPI video: support _BQC/_BCL/_BCM methods that use
>>>> index values) assumed that bl->levels were not reverted, but at this
>>>> point they already are, so there's no need to revert them yet again.
>>>
>>> When acpi_video_bqc_value_to_level is called, bl->levels is not
>>> reverted.
>>
>> This is the code that turns br->flags._BCL_reversed on:
>>
>> if (max_level == br->levels[2]) {
>> br->flags._BCL_reversed = 1;
>> sort(&br->levels[2], count - 2, sizeof(br->levels[2]),
>> acpi_video_cmp_level, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> Now tell me how br->flags._BCL_reversed can be on, and the br->levels
>> *not* reverted.
>
> Oh yes, it is reverted to be in increase order, so it is not in reverse
> order. I'm a little confused by these words.
br->levels is always ascending, but that doesn't mean _BCL is.
> Please see acpi_video_bqc_quirk, we set _BQC_use_index by revert the
> level on a reversed _BCL, so we will need to revert level here too.
I cannot parse that sentence, but nothing needs to change there; to
find out if _BQC is using an index, we need to see if the returned
value is the index of the level we are looking for, and to find that
out we need the original list of levels, which can be found by
reverting the already reverted list. If this wasn't the case there
would not be any need for the _BCL_reversed flag.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
