Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:04:54 +0200 From: Bruno Ducrot <bruno@poupinou.org> To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org, njl@freebsd.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/powerd powerd.c Message-ID: <20050825160454.GG7749@poupinou.org> In-Reply-To: <20050824174354.D69945D07@ptavv.es.net> References: <yge8xyr5zjq.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20050824174354.D69945D07@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:43:54AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > 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. The problem is that umemoto-san do have a lot of frequencies available. It's a kind of "don't use all of them" somehow. In that case, it's more "use half of them". Anyway, I think the only frequencies really usefull for power saving purpose are the ones given by the est driver. Cheers, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050825160454.GG7749>