On mar., 2013-06-25 at 22:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:10:11PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On mar., 2013-06-25 at 21:54 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I agree, we should standardise the behaviour. And the only way we can standardise the behaviour is to leave it up to userspace.
It's pretty clear we disagree on this and that my opinion won't really matter here. But letting userspace handle that just means broken functionality for those who have the chance (apparently) to have an ACPI backlight interface.
Which, as we've already established, you don't - Lenovo broke it. Your Thinkpad claims to have 100 available levels, and most of them don't work. The kernel has no way of knowing which levels work and which don't, so leaving this up to the kernel won't actually fix your system either.
I was referring to “standardize the behaviour by leaving up to userspace”. A lot of thinkpads (for example) (all the pre-windows 8 ones) have a perfectly working ACPI backlight interface.
Also, if the kernel has no way of knowing which levels work, I fail to see how userspace can do better.
I understand that switching to intel_backlight instead of acpi_video0 follows what Windows 8 recommends but for me it looks orthogonal to the fact ACPI methods now have some awkward (Lenovo) or broken (Dell). I mean, it's not the first time firmware people break some kernel behavior. I know it's usually not easy to contact them, but shouldn't those methods be fixed, instead of somehow blindly switching to graphic drivers?