Li, Aubrey wrote: > >Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>The UI and interface are a separate issue from the underlying >>capability, IMO. The power.conf thing is clearly crap, and should be >>replaced. I agree with Randy that we should not remove the capability >>if it is useful. I also would therefore object to removal of the sole >>interface to configure a feature *unless* an alternative were made >>available. > >I think we are in the process now of moving what's in power.conf to SMF? >I suggest not to change/remove any knob in the current power.conf in >phase I. >This will help us to do the migration smoothly and easily and also give >a >backward compatible UI to the user. > >There certainly are a few power related properties need to be improved, >and >there are also some new architectures thoughts could be implemented to >replace >the current ones, like Garrett's two-level configuration are the good >ideas. >But I think they are separate ARC cases and should be reviewed in later >phases. >
Some of properties was implemented about a decade ago, if it's not easy to figure them out and move to SMF in a short time, I think keeping some in SMF and others in power.conf at the same time is probably not a bad idea. That would give us a chance to know how the new SMF PM setting looks like and also give who is interested in this migration an opportunity to do the help. Thanks, -Aubrey _______________________________________________ pm-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-discuss
