[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thinkpad Backlight Trouble in X in Testing



Hi,

A quick follow-up on this: It's a general problem with ACPI triggers,
I think. Suspend on lid close is also no longer working. Can't believe
I didn't think to check this before emailing out - sorry.

Daniel

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Moerner <dmoerner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This morning I encountered serious problems with using my backlight in
> X in Testing. There are two related problems:
>
> 1. The fn keys on my Thinkpad X200s no longer control the backlight
> when X is running.
> 2. The brightness continually stays at minimum. I can manually change
> the backlight by echoing appropriate values into
> /sys/class/backlight/intel_backlight/backlight. However, within
> seconds the backlight returns to the minimum brightness. Also, with
> triggers I can't determine yet, the backlight sometimes flickers from
> minimum to maximum before settling on minimum.
>
> However:
>
> Backlight control with fn keys works as normal while in BIOS, while in
> Grub, while in initramfs (waiting for me to type my crypto password),
> and during boot even after the framebuffer has loaded. Once X has
> started, however, they no longer work, and my brightness, no matter
> what it was beforehand, drops to minimum, and I can no longer change
> it with the fn keys in X or a virtual terminal.
>
> I've attached what I believe to be the only relevant portion of my
> log, the last five days of updates, although I only noticed the
> problem this morning (and it's very noticeable). I've also attached a
> list of packages.
>
> I would file a bug report but I have no idea what package is causing
> this problem. laptop-mode-tools is installed but claims to be
> deactivated (due to being plugged in).
>
> Any help would be appreciated. Even if the fn-keys stop working for
> some reason, if there's some way to figure out how to keep it from
> staying on minimum brightness, that would be fabulous.
>
> Daniel


Reply to: