On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 18:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Benjamin Berg <bberg@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On the X1 Yoga 2nd Generation and most likely other notebooks the > > FLAT > > mode is reported. Decode it correctly rather than warning about an > > unexpected multi mode status to be reported. > > If we can't check on all available hardware, better to avoid "doing > for all" fixes. > I suppose DMI match can help here. The documentation I saw suggests that the flat mode cannot be detected by machines reporting a multi mode status of type 4. This is why the original patch excluded the FLAT mode in the list of valid modes on those devices. I think it is safe to simply assume that all laptops reporting type 4 can actually detect the flat state. Doing so will not affect actual state reporting on machines that may not be able to detect it. And I don't think that the information whether the flat state can be detected or not is interesting enough to bother with DMI matches. Benjamin > It would be nice to hear from Henrique and others as well. > > > > case 4: > > - valid_modes = TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_LAPTOP | > > - TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_TABLET | > > - TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_STAND | > > - TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_TENT; > > - break; > > The common practice is to put > /* fallthrough */ > instead. > > > case 5: > > + /* In mode 4, FLAT is not specified as a valid > > mode. However, > > + * it can be seen at least on the X1 Yoga 2nd > > Generation. > > + */ > > We don't use network subsystem style of comments. > > > valid_modes = TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_LAPTOP | > > TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_FLAT | > > TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_TABLET | > > TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_STAND | > > TP_ACPI_MULTI_MODE_TENT; > > break; > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
