On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:17:38 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:20:55 -0400, Ted Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
What kind of battery life do you get with these patches applied, out
of curiosity?
4-5 hours when doing the usual web-surfing, etc. Seems pretty
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:33:56 -0700, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
Are these really all -stable material?
I think just the sequence that actually makes the machine work; the
scarier patches are those which reduce the mode setting time from 5-10s
down to .7s.
Is this stretching the bounds of
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 01:58:29AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:33:56 -0700, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
Are these really all -stable material?
I think just the sequence that actually makes the machine work; the
scarier patches are those which reduce the mode
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:20:55 -0400, Ted Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
What kind of battery life do you get with these patches applied, out
of curiosity?
4-5 hours when doing the usual web-surfing, etc. Seems pretty much the
same as people are getting under Mac OS.
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
Ok, so I've split all of the changes into bite-sized pieces so that
they should make sense individually now. I've also added the same
asynchronous power control to the panel power, this reduces the
module load time down to about 700ms on my MacBook Air, which is
pretty nice.
Given the length of
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:09:32PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
Ok, so I've split all of the changes into bite-sized pieces so that
they should make sense individually now. I've also added the same
asynchronous power control to the panel power, this reduces the
module load time down to about
