On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2017, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'll answer everything in the other thread, where there are slightly >> more other points raised: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/15/10 > > If you are discussing changes impacting i915, please keep intel-gfx list > in the loop. > I can add intel-gfx to the other thread if you want, but this will IMO just add more noise to your list. The question is whether or not the kernel should provide a fake state for the _LID acpi call, and until we reach an agreement on how to handle things, there is no point changing the currently working code in i915. It is true that there is an issue in i915 regarding the fact that intel_lid_notify() doesn't use the provided value but calls acpi_lid_open(), but this is something that can be solved in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100923, when the situation clarifies. Cheers, Benjamin -- 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
