dkukawka at suse.de
Thu Mar 29 13:10:39 PDT 2007
On Donnerstag, 29. März 2007, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Thu 29. Mar - 15:22:42, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > For the record, I also think it's pointless to advertise Standby() as by
> > doing that you now force applications developers to make a choice
> > between two very similar mechanisms (ACPI S1 vs. ACPI S3). That's a bit
> > stupid I think, _we_ don't want app authors to even care about that.
> > It's just a slippery slope.
> > (as an aside we don't even advertise Standby() in the HAL mechanism; the
> > thinking is that HAL's Suspend() implementation might choose to do ACPI
> > S1 if ACPI S3 is known not to be working on the system)
> I basically agree with that. We don't need Standby() IMHO.
> Danny, I think if there are systems where standby is actually working and
> suspend to ram is not, Suspend() should do S1 behind the back of all
> applications. And if there are systems where both S1 and S3 are working,
> S3 should be preferred anyway. ACPI standby is really dead these days.
This is maybe a possible solution, but the user want to know if he suspend to
ram (S3) or if he go to Standby (S1) if he call something in the
powermanagement application. At least there are some differences between S1
and S3. Power consumption is only one.
You can't say in KPwersave or g-p-m "go to suspend2ram" and call standby in
the background. The user has to know what happen. At least the user which
until now used standby and not s2ram (because he know it would fail) would
never use s2ram or you lead the user to believe that his machine work now
with s2ram but this is not true.
IMO we should allow Standby as an optional method and we should have a way to
differ between them. This would also only effect older machines, actual
laptops don't support S1 anymore.
More information about the xdg