1.5 power management, input events, wakeup events

Tomeu Vizoso tomeu at sugarlabs.org
Thu Jun 25 10:05:58 EDT 2009

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 15:49, Chris Ball<cjb at laptop.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>   > And we will pay the performance cost of ACPI? It was an
>   > oft-repeated thing that ACPI was evil because of complexity and
>   > slowness in the critical path to super smooth sleep-resume
>   > cycles.
>   > Were we overestimating the impact?
> Yes, I believe so.  We may even find that the slowness of some extra
> indirection before making the same function call we would otherwise
> make is not actually measurable.  We'll find out in a week or two.
> The complexity of implementation is real, but it turned out that Mitch
> had to do the work of adding ACPI tables for Windows anyway.  Being
> able to suspend/resume on unmodified distro kernels (and not having to
> constantly maintain and forward-port "the OLPC suspend/resume patch"
> every release) will be a big win, worth some hours of our time in
> setting up ACPI.

Would that mean that gnome-power-manager and DeviceKit-power would
work as-is on the XO-1.5?



> - Chris.
> --
> Chris Ball   <cjb at laptop.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

More information about the Devel mailing list