Re: [REGRESSION] Please revert 1191285ecb42 from 7.1.y

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 8:13 PM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 01:25:14PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 11:25 AM Sergio Callegari
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/08/2026 10:08, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > We aim to be "bug compatible" with Linus's branch, otherwise the
> > > > "pressure" to fix those bugs goes down.  But I defer to the maintainers
> > > > of the code involved if it is being worked on, and they want it
> > > > reverted, great, we can do that.  Otherwise we prefer to leave it as-is.
> > >
> > > I understand. Sorry for asking about things that might be obvious to
> > > most people here. My expectation was that only a selected subset of the
> > > patches on the Linus' tree were to enter in stable, so do we really need
> > > to have stable "bug compatible" wrt this bug? The original behavior was
> > > not free of issues, but they were rather minor (a reporting issue). Now
> > > we have this very bad behavior where the display remains dark.
> > >
> > > To make the matter worse, on systems that have encrypted root the screen
> > > remains dark also on that password prompt (observed with plymouth).
> > >
> > > In any case, I managed testing 7.2.0RC7 and it is fine again.
> > >
> > > Looks like the Linus' tree has more changes wrt backlight, and the
> > > interesting ones are probably those in the cumulative fix
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=973fd9493ec21f12e760fbbedeb7b0b2317c02f4.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for testing.  It sounds like we should revert the change from
> > stable.  There must be some dependency we are missing in stable.
>
> Great, can someone send a revert?
>

Just sent.  Thanks.

Alex

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h