[Pm-utils] low power mode

[Holger Macht]

On Mon 01. May - 20:06:44, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 23:30 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > > Do you mean an Uninteruptible Power Supply aka, an UPS? Yes, HAL and
> > > 
> > > no, something like:
> > > http://www.sps-ltd.com/product/external/max90/max90.htm
> > 
> > Thanks, Stefan! I'm looking for such a link already for about 20 Minutes
> > now ;-)
> 
> Ah, that's a clever device. So, the issue is that with this one attached
> in the laptop "thinks" it's plugged in while it really isn't, yes?

Exactly.

> 
> > > > Sure, what's wrong with changing these settings in the power management
> > > > daemons preference dialog? So, for g-p-m you could add these option to
> > > > each of the "Running On Battery", "Running On AC" and "Running On UPS"
> > > > 
> > > >  [ ] Spin down disks when idle
> > > >  [ ] Suspend devices not in use
> > > >  [ ] ...
> > > 
> > > Yes, it should IMO go there, not into some "lowpower" method of HAL.
> 
> So, while the computer thinks it's on AC the functionality you want,
> basically, is to tell the system to conserve battery power as much as
> possible in order not to drain too much battery? 

Yes.

> 
> I suppose the power management daemon in question would offer some
> option that the user can toggle to always save as much power as possible
> - even when on AC power. That's actually a good idea regardless, I think
> it makes sense to have a "Sacrifice performance for energy savings"
> option for all three profiles under which a system can operate (e.g.
> battery, plugged in, on UPS). Richard, I've filed a bug for g-p-m
> 
>  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340355
> 
> to implement this; what do you think?
> 
> > I didn't want to say that the functionality should go to HAL, but only
> >  that there are situations where you have to set the policy manually because the
> >  system can't figure it out by itself.
> 
> Sure, I don't see either why it's related to pm-utils :-). 

I don't see that too ;-) I just replied to Matthew's comments.

> 
> But thanks for making me realize that the "Sacrifice performance for
> quality" preference is actually useful since it really reflects the
> users desires; e.g. the two users Alice and Bob are different as in
> 
>  1. Alice might be OK watching a movie in low quality (using an
>     inexpensive codec) because she wants to conserve battery; and
> 
>  2. Bob don't mind burning battery and he wants his movie in the
>     highest possible quality. 
> 
> Things like that...
> 
>      David

Regards,
	Holger