On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:48:05PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > What do those numbers mean?
>
> They're documented in the specs.
Really? So what's the difference between 0x80 and 0x81?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
On 02/26/2010 06:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What do those numbers mean?
>
> They're documented in the specs.
You obviously have not read the specs. :)
Jeff
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What do those numbers mean?
They're documented in the specs.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
This is the link that try to explain the issue:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DanielHahler/Bug59695
--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:08:58AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Yes - it's an option that's basically impossible to expose in a UI in a
> > sensible way.
>
> How so? "Spindown timeout", "Advanced power management timeout", and a
> slider with 256 entries (or 240 or what
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:19:22AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote on 24.02.2010 22:59:
> > Further, it loses the settings over suspend/resume. Can we stop blaming
> > this on distributions now?
>
> Then why do a lot of drive load and unload frequently when running a
> lin
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:37:49AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Another possible explanation might be that the access pattern of the OS
> is different, e.g. maybe the drive is not idle long enough to unload.
> But since there is afaik no proper documentation about this issue,
> everything is just gu
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:08:58AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Yes - it's an option that's basically impossible to expose in a UI in a
> > sensible way.
>
> How so? "Spindown timeout", "Advanced power management timeout", and a
> slider with 256 entries (or 240 or what
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:19:22AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote on 24.02.2010 22:59:
> > Further, it loses the settings over suspend/resume. Can we stop blaming
> > this on distributions now?
>
> Then why do a lot of drive load and unload frequently when running a
> lin
Matthew Garrett wrote on 24.02.2010 22:59:
> Further, it loses the settings over suspend/resume. Can we stop blaming
> this on distributions now?
Then why do a lot of drive load and unload frequently when running a
linux-distribution but do not when running the operating system the
Verndor pre-lo
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yes - it's an option that's basically impossible to expose in a UI in a
> sensible way.
How so? "Spindown timeout", "Advanced power management timeout", and a
slider with 256 entries (or 240 or whatever the number of non-weird ones is)
looks quite sensible to me.
Further, it loses the settings over suspend/resume. Can we stop blaming
this on distributions now?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:07:50AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> And what does Windows do? I have the strange feeling it doesn't assume
> the same and instead simply sets something it thinks is sensible, which
> afaics results in Hardware manufactures not to care much what the
> initial value f
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 16:44 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> > Whatever the reason, many users think it is better to change the setting -
> > is there
> > any reason why the power manager should not make it really easy?
>
> Yes
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 01:10:10AM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> This is not a big problem, you can use pm-utils to solve this bug by throwing
> srcipts to /etc/pm/sleep.d and /etc/pm/power.d.
> Anyone who cares high frequency of load/unload cycles on some hard disks can
> refering
> http://wiki.archl
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:07:44PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> Whatever the reason, many users think it is better to change the setting - is
> there
> any reason why the power manager should not make it really easy?
Yes - it's an option that's basically impossible to expose in a UI in a
se
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:09:39PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:34:54PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> > it was my understanding that "hdparm -B" has nothing to do with the BIOS
> > but changes
> > the power management feature specific to the drive?
>
> Either
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 09:53:39AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> You have to set it manually at bootup (add it to /etc/rc.local), but
> after suspend/hibernate the values are normally restored by pm-utils
> (eventually this might happen in the kernel). In the past some devices
> needed a manual overri
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 16:17 +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:09:39 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Either the drive set the initial value, or the BIOS did. We tend to
> > assume that there was some reason for that...
>
> Well, the BIOS also sets the VGA resolution to 80x25.
Hi.
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:09:39 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Either the drive set the initial value, or the BIOS did. We tend to
> assume that there was some reason for that...
Well, the BIOS also sets the VGA resolution to 80x25.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> I have one of these netbooks that need "hdparm -B high_value" to avoid
> unhealthy
> frequent head parking. From some archived mails I had the impression that it
> was
> planned that gnome power manager and similar would take ca
Matthew Garrett wrote on 23.02.2010 23:09:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:34:54PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
>> it was my understanding that "hdparm -B" has nothing to do with the BIOS but
>> changes
>> the power management feature specific to the drive?
> Either the drive set the initial va
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:34:54PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> it was my understanding that "hdparm -B" has nothing to do with the BIOS but
> changes
> the power management feature specific to the drive?
Either the drive set the initial value, or the BIOS did. We tend to
assume that there
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:34:54PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 08:18:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > What is the state of this - is some package responsible for this or is it
>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 08:18:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > Hi,
> > What is the state of this - is some package responsible for this or is it
> > up to
> > the user to do it manualy?
>
> We have no understanding of the
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have one of these netbooks that need "hdparm -B high_value" to avoid
> unhealthy
> frequent head parking. From some archived mails I had the impression that it
> was
> planned that gnome power manager and similar would
26 matches
Mail list logo
