1.5 power management, input events, wakeup events
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:
> > 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
More information about the Devel