Hi! > > > I like the per-instance idea better. If I have, for example, two > > > harddrives on the same bus, I might have very different usage patterns > > > for them. I might want one to spend most of it's time powered down, and > > > the other to be always on. > > > > I don't object to this in principle, and I can see how it might be useful. > > > > But at the price of being heretical, consider one of the existing > > precedents. As far as I know, the central device power management > > interface in Windows only lets users specify how long to wait before > > suspending the display and how long to wait before spinning down disks. > > That's all, just two settings. No per-device stuff, no nothing. > > > > This isn't to say that we should copy Windows. However it does show that > > a very complex set of controls might not be needed. Actually, as we already spindown and blank settings, we could finish here :-). What devices is this targetted at? Video should be handled already (or perhaps we want to power down graphics card when screen is blanked?). Disks spin down too. IRDA ports? Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
