On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: _trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame your head of if there's excessive quoting.
> > I had a offline conversation with Daniel about this since there are > > other triggers - thermal constraints and game-like apps being examples > > - that might want to override the system policy. He intended > > "performance" mode to mean the existing code paths and "power" mode to > > mean *additional* new heuristics for energy-efficiency. The power > > supply assumption is just the first one of those heuristics. > > Well, so now the question is whether or not we relly want to always > go to the "power" (or "energy efficiency" if you will) mode if the system > is on battery. That arguably may not be a good thing even for energy > efficiency depending on how exactly the modes are defined. Nobody is talking about always. But in general it seems a good enough approach. Hell, many of the AC/BAT switches in todays power management crap things are not always right. Do I want it to dim the LCD further when I unplug the laptop -- mostly no, but still it does. And the most annoying one is that it reduces the screen blank time to something near 5 seconds or so. Why would this be any different? If you know what you want you can turn the knob. > So in my opinion it's too early to add things like that at this point. Meh.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
