From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754699AbYAVLqa (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:46:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751865AbYAVLqU (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:46:20 -0500 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([78.32.9.130]:49379 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751769AbYAVLqT (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:46:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:05 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett To: Zhang Rui Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com Message-ID: <20080122114605.GA23983@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20071226020325.GA21099@srcf.ucam.org> <1200990809.7424.31.camel@acpi-sony.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200990809.7424.31.camel@acpi-sony.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rationalise ACPI backlight implementation X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:35:45 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on vavatch.codon.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:33:29PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > I have no obvious objection on either of these two proposals. > But one thing to mention is that > both of these two patches is written on the assumption that the > brightness levels listed in _BCL method are in ascending order, while > this is not stated in the ACPI spec. > Is this a problem? The driver already makes that assumption, and it's implicit in the spec. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org