> > By design, autosuspends should not change the timing behavior of programs;
> > the idea is for the computer to act the same, but do so using less power.
>
> Autosuspend and lid-close suspends are identical in function. The only
> difference is the allowed wakeup source. The CPU is turned of
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Have you tried the check button for more feedback?
Yes, on all the machines. Where it fails, it never mentions trying
anything on the usb disk.
Skips straight to booting from nand.
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org -- S
On 07/29/2010 04:45 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> My power logging scripts originally used 'sleep'. But what I found was
>> that if the time-to-suspend was shorter than sleep then the script would
>> have cases where it would never run.
>
> Are we experiencing confusion between autosuspends and lid-
Hi Mitch, list,
I am running a sn/uuid collection across XOs that I have here.
The USB flash disks I have available are very bad quality.
XO-1 hw running Q2D17 or Q2E41 mostly succeeds (varies with USB quality).
XO-1 with Q2E43 or 44, and XO-1.5 with Q3A41 have failed in all cases.
The best USB
> My power logging scripts originally used 'sleep'. But what I found was
> that if the time-to-suspend was shorter than sleep then the script would
> have cases where it would never run.
Are we experiencing confusion between autosuspends and lid-close suspends?
By design, autosuspends should n
