Holger Macht hmacht at
Thu Mar 29 14:07:18 PDT 2007

On Thu 29. Mar - 16:52:27, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 22:10 +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote:
> > > 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.
> Keep in mind that org.fd.PM is an interface for _applications_ not for
> PM daemons; applications just don't care what the mechanism is. They
> just want the machine to go to sleep, they really really don't care
> about whether it's S1 or S3 or how much power is saved. 
> (Applications _might_ care about difference between Hibernate() and
> Suspend() given that the former introduces a higher latency. In fact, I
> can argue that the org.fd.PM should only offer a Sleep() method to
> prevent applications authors having headaches about whether they should
> choose Suspend() or Hibernate().)
> Again, the golden rule here is to figure out the needs of the
> _application_ - the user is already served well by the UI present in the
> PM daemon implementing this interface. As such, the PM daemon can care
> as much as it wants about S1 vs. S3; I don't see a problem with the PM
> daemon offering 
>  [*] Use ACPI S3 for Suspend
>  [ ] Use ACPI S1 for Suspend
> as an option in it's configuration interface. You should be free to do
> that in your implementation. The org.fd.PM specification does not
> prevent you from such an UI and it shouldn't. This specification should
> care about the needs of applications.

I fully agree on all this.

> (I don't, however, such UI is good UI nor do I think it belongs in
> gnome-power-manager. But that's up to Richard and the GNOME project I
> suppose.)

And as a conclusion, if no one else has any comments on this, I think we
should let it up to Richard to decide whether to take the Standby()
methods or not.


More information about the xdg mailing list