On Monday 08 March 2010 17:11:49 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Monday 8. March 2010 12.17.13 Holger Macht wrote:
> > I don't think they are idiots at all. Did you read the links I posted?
> > Would you expect everybody reading such texts before configuring there
> > power management needs? Having the CPU frequency options in the
> > powerdevil GUI leads to people think "wow, I'm saving power when setting
> > the governor to powersave when on battery power". But this is plain
> > wrong. They won't read the documentation, they're just clicking and
> > think they are happy but actually are draining more power than before.
> I think you misunderstand Nikos' point.
> There are several valid use-cases for manually setting the CPU frequency
> governor, and by removing the discoverability of this function, we lessen
> the users experience.
By not offering options that 98% of the users won't understand correctly, we're
improving the user experience. (The irony is that pretty much everybody on this
list belongs to these 98% and at the same time claiming that the options is
vital. :/) I'd suggest to re-read those references Holger posted. It's not like
they're written by random people, and it's also not the case that re-iterating
the reasoning in there is efficient, or fun.
I'd suggest that those, who those who disagree with Holger's patch, and thus
claim that pretty much everybody who's working on power management at kernel
and HAL levels gear up and start collecting data, because unless we can *prove*
that those options make a difference, we should trust our lower level peers and
not offer these knobs that hurt more than they do good.
Really, kernel power management is advanced enough these days that we don't
have to switch CPU frequency manually. And that's a good thing, because it