search

ailijic / easy-slow-down-manager

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/easy-slow-down-manager
0 stars 0 forks source link

software fails with 2.6.35-24 on ubuntu #6

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Having the software installed 
2. upgrade to the most recent Ubuntu kernel, 2.6.35-24
3. software does not work any longer

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected is, that the brightness can be adjusted after the update, like it was 
after all the earlier updates.
With this recent update, the display of the brightness slider is still popping 
up, and it can be moved left-right, but that does not affect the brightness 
itself at all. It seems to sit on 'full brightness' invariably

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
0.13.3~ppa1~loms~maverick Ubuntun10.10

Please provide any additional information below.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by udip...@gmail.com on 22 Dec 2010 at 11:57

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sometimes dkms does not recompile module after upgrading the kernel; 
reinstalling the .deb package is recommended

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 26 Dec 2010 at 11:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Recommended, but, alas, not doing the job.
I did apt-get remove --purge && apt-get install for easy-slow-down and
samsung-tools, but the situation remains the same: Full power
backlight, and the slider dysfunctional.

Linux 2.6.35-24-generic #43~ppa1~loms~maverick-Ubuntu SMP Fri Dec 24
18:15:40 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux

What next?

Uwe

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 27 Dec 2010 at 3:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Though I did the purge && install with 2.6.24, and it doesn't work with it, 
when I boot to the older version, 
2.6.35-23-generic #42~ppa1~loms~maverick-Ubuntu SMP Tue Nov 30 02:35:28 UTC 
2010 i686 GNU/Linux
it works splendidly.

You need anything from my side for debugging?

Uwe

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 1 Jan 2011 at 10:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
- what is the output of 'dkms status'?
- do you have samsung-backlight.ko in 
/lib/modules/2.6.35-24-generic/updates/dkms/
- what is the output of 'sudo insmod 
/lib/modules/2.6.35-24-generic/updates/dkms/samsung-backlight.ko' under the new 
kernel?
- do you have a boot option acpi_backlight=vendor i915.modeset=1 with the new 
kernel?
- do you have any backlight module related messages in log (dmesg | grep 
Samsung)?

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 8:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Do you use voria kernel?

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 10:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
No, (I don't know what voria is supposed to be), just the plain, 
standard, ubuntu kernel for netbook remix.

Uwe

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 12:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
easy_slow_down_manager, 0.13.3, 2.6.35-24-generic, i686: installed
samsung_backlight, 0.13.3, 2.6.35-22-generic, i686: built
samsung_backlight, 0.13.3, 2.6.35-24-generic, i686: installed
samsung_backlight, 0.13.3, 2.6.35-23-generic, i686: installed

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  9572 2010-12-27 11:29 easy_slow_down_manager.ko
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 14092 2010-12-22 08:52 samsung-backlight.ko

insmod: error inserting 
'/lib/modules/2.6.35-24-generic/updates/dkms/samsung-backlight.ko': -1 
File exists

(I don't understand)

[   15.282885] Samsung-backlight: checking for SABI support.
[   15.283074] Samsung-backlight: SABI is supported (f5191)

Please ask, whenever you need more!

Uwe

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 1:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi, i have the same problem like udippel. Any solution?

Original comment by diegofo...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 3:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
ok, module seems to be installed properly and loaded. Could you attach Xserver 
log: /var/log/Xorg.0.log ?
Also, which backlight interfaces do you have? (ls -l /sys/class/backlight)
What is the maximum brightness level? (cat 
/sys/class/backlight/samsung/max_brightness)

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 4:09

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
backlight interfaces

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 2011-01-07 14:15 acpi_video0 -> 
../../devices/virtual/backlight/acpi_video0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 2011-01-07 14:15 samsung -> 
../../devices/virtual/backlight/samsung

maximum brightness level = 7

Original comment by diegofo...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 5:20

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Thanks for your help!

Original comment by diegofo...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 5:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
the problem is that you have two interfaces for brightness control: samsung and 
acpi and X server chooses the wrong one (acpi);
edit /etc/default/grub by adding (or editing) the line
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="acpi_backlight=vendor"
run update-grub and reboot

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 6:53

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi SergeyKo81 thanks for you help, a made the changes that you said and now i 
can change the bright with Fn + UP but when i star GNOME i have blingking about 
30 sec. I looked some forums and i found this 
http://www.voria.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=625&start=15

Do you have any idea about this? Thanks in advance

Original comment by diegofo...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 7:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
- try playing with the GNOME powersave option 'dim display when idle'
- try disabling brightness change on battery state changes
I had such weird things with xneur (automatic key translation tool), maybe 
you're using something similar?

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 8:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Done

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 2011-01-08 09:05 acpi_video0 ->
../../devices/virtual/backlight/acpi_video0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 2011-01-08 09:05 samsung ->
../../devices/virtual/backlight/samsung

7

Hope this helps,

Uwe

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 8 Jan 2011 at 1:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Uwe, please, see comment #12: the same solution applies to you.

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 8 Jan 2011 at 9:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
When I boot back to the previous 2.6.35-23 kernel, on this same
machine, this works perfectly well and correct:

$ uname -a
Linux 2.6.35-23-generic #42~ppa1~loms~maverick-Ubuntu SMP Tue Nov 30
02:35:28 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
$ ls -l /sys/class/backlight/
total 0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 2011-01-08 18:22 samsung ->
../../devices/virtual/backlight/samsung
$

What do I make from this? Sorry to contradict, but the problem does
not seem to be a missing boot / grub option, but a different behaviour
of the kernel w.r.t. acpi.
Since all previous kernels have behaved well, and only this one
behaves differently, I am very tempted to point fingers at the
compilation of the bumped-up 2.6.35-23 to 2.6.35-24 kernel. Except
that the difference, the patch of a vulnerability, had anything to do
with acpi.

Maybe you might want to ask the maintainer,
Ubuntu Kernel Team <kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com>
about this change of behaviour?
I don't want to dodge the task, but I don't know enough about your
software to really start arguing with them.

As of now, instead of fiddling with grub, I for one would suggest to
stick with 2.6.35-23 on Ubuntu Samsung netbooks, at least the N-150
family.
To me this looks conspicuously like a bug, a failed compilation option
or setting, or something to that behalf. Again, had not all previous
kernels behaved properly, I'd agree with your solution as suggested in
# 12 and # 16.
A vulnerability patch is not supposed to change behaviour in another
subsystem, though.

My 2 humble sen as a not-kernel-developer,

Uwe

P.S.: Of course, X can go for the wrong API, if the kernel *offers*
it; like in 2.6.35-24

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 8 Jan 2011 at 10:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The module is intended to replace the default implementation of brightness 
control. For this purpose the kernel offers special boot parameter, and it is 
the way the module is supposed to be used (as indicated in the readme file on 
the donwloads page). From this point of view I see no reasons talking to Ubuntu 
developers.

Moreover, I would consider missing acpi brightness interface as a bug on the 
previous versions of the kernel (despite it does not work)

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2011 at 3:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Okay, I very much appreciate your comment!
So this means, we have to live with yet another addition to the
easy-slow-down-manager; that is preparing grub to tell the kernel the
correct interface to use?

I can agree, this is kind of logical, the first one to be expected
would be the acpi, to be available, in any case.
And still, there is one more argument; and that's an ancient
Unix-concept: override. Only if the user has no ~/.xyz.conf, will
/etc/xyz.conf be used as system-wide config, and applied to the user.
acpi is the default, and should be there. However, a user- or
admin-supplied backlight interface should take precedence. acpi should
only kick in as 'last resort'. grub ought not be overloaded with all
sorts of options defining precedences.

Thanks so much for this software anyway!

Uwe

Original comment by udip...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2011 at 4:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by SergeyK...@gmail.com on 29 Jul 2011 at 5:55