Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> I'd personally like to use devkit-power and it's API as a service, as
> overloading it with such functionality might very quickly lead to the
> problems we've seen in the past with HAL where everything was put into
> a single service.
Richard Hughes wrote:
I'd personally like to use devkit-power and it's API as a service, as
overloading it with such functionality might very quickly lead to the
problems we've seen in the past with HAL where everything was put into
a single service.
>>> No, I think it's 100%
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:54 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Can you upload the new interface when we've got the changes
> in? Since it's public API and all, another round of review might be
> good.
New interface uploaded here:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/DeviceKit-power/gtk-doc/Latency.
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:17 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 14:53 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> >> Using monitoring information e.g. from collectd or other sources this
> >> could automatically be detected though and then the system could be
> >> automa
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 14:53 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
>> Using monitoring information e.g. from collectd or other sources this
>> could automatically be detected though and then the system could be
>> automatically transitioned into a related power saving states depending
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 14:53 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Using monitoring information e.g. from collectd or other sources this
> could automatically be detected though and then the system could be
> automatically transitioned into a related power saving states depending
> on the load.
What's do
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:54 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 12:08 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > Why wouldn't the admin just use the same method? I'm not sure why we
> > > need two separate methods. I mean, with a CancelLatencyRequest() and
> > > proper user interface the ad
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 12:08 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > Why wouldn't the admin just use the same method? I'm not sure why we
> > need two separate methods. I mean, with a CancelLatencyRequest() and
> > proper user interface the admin can just remove requests that way.
>
> Nahh, the admin inte
Hi folks.
I'm not sure if this is in the scope of devkit-power, but i'd at least
like to bring that topic up here as it is something our engineering team
here is looking at the moment.
The basic simple idea is to adapt the latencies on the fly depending on
the current state and load of the var
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:26 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> If a cookie is what we want (and I think we do), we shouldn't implement
> it this way. Second, everything in a process share the D-Bus connection
> so this wouldn't be a very good cookie anyway.
Agreed, I've changed the interface.
> The po
10 matches
Mail list logo
