[Intel-gfx] Linux 3.11-rc2 [backlight] [ASUS N56VZ]

[Aaron Lu]

On 07/30/2013 03:36 AM, * SAMÍ * wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> 
> did you commit a full revert?
> Because I am experiencing quite weird things in rc3.
> Do we have a bug opened to discuss about it?

Yes we have:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52951

I'll look into this issue.

Thanks,
Aaron

> 
> Here is what I can observe:
> 1) During boot, probably when loading the driver, backlight gets off (or 
> to a level low enough to make me feel it is off)
> 2) When I am playing with my Fn+x keys, I am getting a completely full / 
> completely low brightness with no intermediate steps
> 3) When I am playing with my Fn+x keys while gnome brightness settings 
> panel is open, I am recovering intermediate steps but the Fn+x keys 
> behavior is inverted (the key supposed to lower the brightness make it 
> increase and vice-versa. Note that the gnome brightness indicator also 
> gets inverted).
> 4) Playing with the mouse on gnome brightness settings is working, 
> except that on the minimum level, backlight gets off
> 5) Writing to /sys/class/backlight/intel_backlight/brightness works
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> On 07/25/2013 02:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2013 03:34:10 PM Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw at sisk.pl> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:09:27 AM Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw at sisk.pl> wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I wonder what about the appended (untested) patch?
>>>>> Rafael, before going there, I've been trying to wrap my (poor, rusty
>>>>> after vacation) head around
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 8c5bd7adb2ce47e6aa39d17b2375f69b0c0aa255
>>>>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki at intel.com>
>>>>> Date:   Thu Jul 18 02:08:06 2013 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>      ACPI / video / i915: No ACPI backlight if firmware expects Windows 8
>>>>>
>>>>> and I can't see how it could work.
>>>> Well, if it didn't work, people wouldn't see either improvement or breakage
>>>> from it, but they do see that, so it evidently works. :-)
>>> I didn't claim it didn't work, just that *I* didn't see how it could. ;)
>>>
>>>>> First, the ACPI_VIDEO_SKIP_BACKLIGHT flag seems to be checked before
>>>>> it's actually set anywhere.
>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>> acpi_video_bus_add() is the .add() callback routine for acpi_video_bus which
>>>> in fact is an ACPI driver (the naming sucks, but I didn't invent it).  This
>>>> means that acpi_video_bus_add() can only be called *after* acpi_video_bus
>>>> has been registered with the ACPI subsystem (and the driver core).  That
>>>> is done by acpi_bus_register_driver() and, guess what?, this happens in
>>>> __acpi_video_register().  So clearly, acpi_video_bus_add() *cannot* run before
>>>> __acpi_video_register().
>>> Right. I totally missed the call within the ternary operator. Thanks for
>>> the explanation, and apologies for the noise.
>>>
>>>>> Second, with i915 that has opregion support, __acpi_video_register()
>>>>> should only ever get called once. Which means the acpi_walk_namespace()
>>>>> with video_unregister_backlight() should never get called in register.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please enlighten me.
>>>> Actually, that's correct, so we don't need the whole
>>>> video_unregister_backlight() thing, calling acpi_video_backlight_quirks() would
>>>> be sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, one more reason to do a full revert.  I'm thinking, though, that I'll leave
>>>> acpi_video_backlight_quirks() as is so that it can be used by
>>>> acpi_video_bus_(start)|(stop)_devices(), because that doesn't seem to cause
>>>> problems to happen.
>>> I observe that for the regular non-quirk acpi_video_register() call,
>>> acpi_video_backlight_quirks() won't be called during register, but it
>>> will get called later. This might have subtle effects later on, don't
>>> you think?
>> Yes, it might, but after dropping ACPI_VIDEO_SKIP_BACKLIGHT it should be OK.
>>
>>> As to the original problem, and your patch in this thread, what do you
>>> think about having another value in acpi_backlight kernel parameter for
>>> it? Having an i915 module parameter to tell acpi to use or not use
>>> quirks seems odd, since the i915 is not really taking over
>>> anything. It's just passing the info on to acpi.
>> I agree, I'm going to send a full revert in a while and we'll think what to
>> do about all that later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rafael
>>
>>
>