From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Sat Apr 18 02:02:06 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957D02B3F48; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 02:02:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493x6Q2yGZz4Bnf; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 02:02:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 40DEF603E; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 02:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 02:02:06 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Colin Percival Cc: Oliver Pinter , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "src-committers@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: svn commit: r360025 - head/sys/dev/acpica Message-ID: <20200418020206.GA80306@FreeBSD.org> References: <202004162156.03GLuqgw058432@repo.freebsd.org> <20200417062636.GC24371@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 02:02:06 -0000 On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:54:52AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > On 2020-04-16 23:26, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > >> ... > >> I considered that, but so far I don't have any evidence that other > >> systems exist with the same half-working ACPI. Unless you're aware of > >> people who are seeing the same "hw.apci.video.lcd0.brightness changes > >> but thebacklight doesn't" syndrome? > > > > So this is more like a work-around for the problem which lies elsewhere: > > something is missing in acpi_video(4) or perhaps we need a (nonexistent) > > acpi_dell(4)? In this case, shouldn't it be disabled by default, or at > > least be toggable since as you say, evidently just a minority of systems > > exist with the same half-working ACPI? > > Having occasional extra messages coming through devctl(4) is harmless; by > default devd will just drop them on the floor since there isn't anything > configured to do with them. > > In an upcoming change to the graphics/intel-backlight port (if/when someone > merges my patch into their github repo...) I'll be providing a configuration > file which can be copied into /usr/local/etc/devd/ in order to hook these > messages up to the intel-backlight utility. > > So... yes, for practical purposes this is disabled by default. Understood, thanks Colin! ./danfe