Jack Bates sql0yt at
Wed Apr 27 18:27:30 CEST 2016

On 24/04/16 08:41 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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!

Would you make any changes to it?

More information about the Xfce mailing list