On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/02/2013 04:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 08/02/2013 03:59 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 08/02/2013 02:44 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The initial _BCM commands don't work, so the level remains at 100%. >>>>>> Since the level is max_level, acpi_video_bqc_quirk() tries with the >>>>>> first level, which is 0, and 0 happens to be the index of 100. >>>>>> >>>>>> So _BQC is returning 100, which is not the index of 0 (what we tested >>>>>> for), but actually 100. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the current code is correct, but acpi_video_bqc_quirk() should >>>>>> be testing br->levels[3], or anything other than 0/100 which can be >>>>>> easily confused. >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, the code would find that _BQC doesn't work on this machine (in >>>>>> win8 mode)... at least initially. My guess is that it only starts to >>>>>> work after acpi_video_bus_start_devices() is called. >>>>>> >>>>>> Forcing br->flags._BQC_use_index = 0 seems to work. >>>>> >>>>> Seems ASUS machines tend to have this issue: >>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52951 >>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56711 >>>> >>>> I don't see any real solution for the ACPI driver. >>>> >>>>> I have a patch to enhance the quirk some time ago: >>>>> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9 >>>> >>>> I think this is unnecessarily complicated; the comment makes it clear >>> >>> For your system, yes it is unnecessarily complicated. But since this is >>> a quirk, it better solves as many potential problems as possible, or we >>> would simply use a DMI entry to do the quirk. >> >> The only difference between my patch and yours is that your patch >> checks that br->level[i] is not the current level, but that check is >> not necessary. If _BQC always returns the max level, all we need to do > > _BQC does not always returns the max level. > >> is pick another value, any other value, and br->level[3] works just >> fine. > > For a _BCL only having 4 elements { 100, 40, 40, 100 }, the br->levels[3] > will be the max level. The example here may be too crazy to be true, but > since we are dealing with firmware, I tend to believe anything could > happen. That can be fixed easily by checking test_level == current_level and do the same your patch does, but I actually don't think we should do that. It might make sense to test two values instead of only one, that way we can we properly test _BQC, while your patch simply assumes it doesn't work, even though it might. -- 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
