On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is possible the i915 driver decides not to register a backlight > interface for the graphics card for some reason(memory allocation failed > or it knows the native control does not work on this card or whatever), > so I would prefer let i915 tell ACPI video that it has registered a > native backlight control interface as Jani has said. > > Then together with the video.use_native_backlight, we can register or > not register ACPI video backlight interface accordingly. Or rather, we > can simply not register ACPI video backlight interface for Win8 systems > as long as i915 indicates that it has native backlight control(if the > native control is broken, i915 should fix it or blacklist it so that > i915 will not indicate it has native backlight control and ACPI video > will continue to register its own). > > How does this sound? Sounds good to me. Before plunging forward, have you observed any difference between the boot modes? We have reports [1] that the backlight behaviour is different with UEFI vs. UEFI+CSM or legacy boot. So I'm wondering if the acpi_gbl_osi_data >= ACPI_OSI_WIN_8 check in patch 2/2 is the whole story. Further, if we tell the BIOS we're Windows 8 to use the tested BIOS code paths, what guarantees do we have of UEFI+CSM or legacy boots working? BR, Jani. [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47941#c96 -- Jani Nikula, 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
