Jack Bates sql0yt at
Sun Apr 24 17:41:48 CEST 2016

On 23/04/16 01:42 PM, Harald Judt wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> Am 22.04.2016 um 22:11 schrieb Jack Bates:
>> On 22/04/16 11:05 AM, Harald Judt wrote:
>>> Am 22.04.2016 um 19:44 schrieb Jack Bates:
>>>> On 21/04/16 11:33 PM, Harald Judt wrote:
>>>>> Am 22.04.2016 um 02:56 schrieb Jack Bates:
>>>>>> Would you consider a patch to replace the list in
>>>>>> backlight_helper_get_best_backlight()
>>>>> Yes we could do that if you provide one. However...
>>>>>> with the same logic as here:
>>>>>> i.e. grab the first interface of type "firmware" and fall back on the
>>>>>> first interface of type "platform" and finally "raw".
>>>>> This seems to me like just another priority list. Can you
>>>>> tell/guarantee
>>>>> that this would be better than the current implementation?
>>>>> Isn't this just replacing the current implementation with another
>>>>> arbitrary solution using a priority list?
>>>> This is the commit that replaced the whitelist with the kernel-supplied
>>>> backlight type in the GNOME source, and the rationale:
>>>> I'd be happy to cook up and provide a patch for Xfce.
>>> This is possible starting with kernel 2.6.37. That means this is
>>> probably linux only, and I know we have *bsd users too, because someone
>>> provided a patch a while ago. I have asked in IRC #xfce-dev whether this
>>> would work for these "other" systems, so let's wait for the feedback. Or
>>> maybe someone else who reads this can tell?
>> Sounds good, thanks for looking to get feedback.
>> Is the existing whitelist portable?
> The FreeBSD code does not use backlight_helper_get_best_backlight() and
> thus does not need this whitelist. So feel free to cook up the patch.
> Please create a new bug for xfce4-power-manager at and
> attach the patch there for review.

Will do, thanks!

More information about the Xfce mailing list