All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:35:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5201CE7A.40804@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0EwO11to-nfjhKkUidQKe6h=y0o-V7gYmF_mJeKhMRtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 08/04/2013 10:19 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 
>>> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
>>> synthetic case than what you patch does, which will also make _BQC
>>> work. That can be discussed later though, the one-liner is simple, and
>>> it works.
>>
>> So, let's assume that the one-liner goes into 3.11 and work further with that
>> assumption.
>>
>> How would you address the sythetic case (on top of the one-liner)?
> 
> I would write and read two values instead of one. The code is trying
> to check if _BQC is always returning the maximum, and if you try with

The code is introduced by commit a50188dae3089dcd15a6ae793528c157680891f1
where the broken system will always return a constant value for _BQC,
either 0 or 100. So the commit at that time tries to not test a maximum
value for the quirk.

Then we have the ASUS NV56Z problem and its problem is explained in:
https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9
And due to its reverse order of _BCL, testing the minimum value is not
good either.

So if the two values test is going to be adopted, I would suggest avoid
testing edge values. But then I'm not sure if it is still worth to test
two values instead of one.

> two values you can be absolutely certain if that's happening or not;
> it doesn't even matter which values you choose. Even in the synthetic
> case that only has two values the check would work correctly and
> detect that _BQC works correctly (or not).
> 
> In my machine I think the issue is slightly different, I think _BCM is
> failing, at least until enabling the _DOS thing, but at the end of the
> day it's the same thing for the check; _BQC is always returning the
> same value, and the code above will find that out, regardless of which
> values are tested.

If you think _BCM fails before _DOS and that makes acpi_video_bqc_quirk
not correct, I think you can call acpi_video_bus_start_devices before the
acpi_video_bus_get_devices in acpi_video_bus_add to make _BCM work before
we do the quirk test and then add some debug prints in acpi_video_bqc_quirk
and add some test levels to check it out.

-Aaron

> 
> For my particular machine though, I think it's more interesting to
> find out why _BCM is failing before _DOS, and why efaa14c made it
> work. If that is actually the case.

      parent reply	other threads:[~2013-08-07  4:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-02 19:37 [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check Felipe Contreras
2013-08-02 23:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03  1:04   ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03  1:16     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03  1:07       ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03  1:19         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03  1:30           ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03  8:14   ` Aaron Lu
2013-08-03 11:34     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 20:24       ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 21:40         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 22:20           ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-03 22:38             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-03 22:37               ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04  1:47             ` Aaron Lu
2013-08-04  6:54               ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04 14:14                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-04 14:08                   ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04  1:18       ` Aaron Lu
2013-08-04  6:42         ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-04 14:19           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-04 14:19             ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 14:04               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-05 14:41                 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-07  4:35               ` Aaron Lu [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5201CE7A.40804@gmail.com \
    --to=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
    --cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.