Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:43:54 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bruno Ducrot <bruno@FreeBSD.org>, acpi@freebsd.org, njl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/powerd powerd.c Message-ID: <20050824174354.D69945D07@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:45:13 %2B0900." <yge8xyr5zjq.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:45:13 +0900 > From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> > Sender: owner-cvs-all@freebsd.org > > Hi, > > >>>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:14:42 +0900 > >>>>> Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> said: > > ume> It feels too lazy for my laptop. One freq level for decreasing and > ume> two freq level for incresing is comfortable to me. > > Oops, I meant two and four. > Because, my main laptop has double CPU levels than my second laptop. > So, it takes double iteration for transition from highest to lowest or > from lowest to highest. Don't know what Nate and Bruno might think, but adding an argument to set the speed bump up would be trivial to code. If there is consensus that this is a good idea, it becomes a question of how to design the user interface. Absolute steps of percent of range come to mind. I don't think anyone wants to slow down faster than on step at a time. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050824174354.D69945D07>