Hi, On 04/30/2014 09:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:37:21 PM Hans de Goede wrote: >> This fixes the backlight control not working. >> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Reported-and-tested-by: Vincent Gerris <vgerris@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sorry, this conflicts with commit 170269a9d3c0 (ACPI / video: Default to using > native backlight control on Windows 8 systems) in linux-next, so I'm not going > to apply it. I strongly disagree, rejecting bug-fixes which conflict with more rigorous (and dangerous) fixes -next, purely because the conflict with something -next is not a good reason. TBH I find it a complete non reason to reject these fixes. > If you wanted to have this stuff in 3.15, there was a plenty of time to submit > it earlier. Heh, that assumes I was aware of this particular model needing this quirk earlier, while I actually got the first report of it not working from Vincent on April 26th, and got confirmation that the quirk fixes it on April 29th. I would say that 1 day turn around time between getting the confirmation and sending the patch is not bad at all. I really believe it is important to get the quirk for this model (and others) into 3.15, here us my decision tree leading to this: -Do we want to fix these brightness issues -> Yes -Do we expect our users to wait for 6 months for an upstream fix + many more months for the fixed kernel to hit distros -> No -So we want to backport these fixes to stable -> Yes -Is the proposed fix for 3.16 acceptable for stable -> No (too high change of regressions) Conclusion: we want quirks for models known to need quirks added to 3.15 and backported to the various stable series. I actually want to go as far as to claim that once 3.15 is released we will want to add quirks to 3.15.x, breaking the every fix must be upstream rule for the stable series. But lets safe that discussion for later. I've been doing triaging of (Fedora) brightness bugs for the last few days (I sort of just rolled into this whole brightness business) and this really is a big problem, Fedora as well as all other distros are getting lots of bugs, and we need to fix this now, not in a year from now. To give you an idea here is a partial list of Fedora bugs I've been working on: Brightness adjustment FN keys doesn't work https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702352 Brightness/backlight keys (fn+F8, fn+F9) does not work on lenovo T530 out of the box https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947976 Acer Aspire V5-171-9620 display brightness doesn't change using keyboard Fn keys (but onscreen slider moves) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983342 Dell brightness keys register multiple times https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986653 unable to adjust monitor brightness with nouveua, Toshiba, and 3.11.0 kernel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999684 Brightness does not change on Intel graphics (using keys or slider) since about 3.9 kernels https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025690 Brightness keys stopped working between kernel 3.12.10-300 and 3.13.3-201 on Asus EEE PC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067181 T530: Unsupported brightness interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089545 Can't change display brightness on HP EliteBook 8470p https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093120 Backlight is non-responsive on Lenovo W530 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093171 As for this specific patch, you can keep it dropped / rejected as I'm going to send a new patch which adds the quirk for 4 models including this one. Regards, Hans -- 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
