Hi. On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 08:44, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > 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? - Video - Storage - Hotplug devices - CPU power savings - Scanner lights Anything you might care to imagine :> Video handling is an ... interesting ... case, sort of like the DRI/DRM issue. It's a combination of X and FB drivers at the mo. It should be done in one place. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Bus: +61 (2) 6291 9554; Hme: +61 (2) 6292 8028; Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 Maintainer of Suspend2 Kernel Patches http://suspend2.net
