ok, tried dim again and its working quite differently from the version where it was first introduced - the standard settings still stink though! and I still think dimming as it is done here is a dumb idea.
fsoraw now disables dimming which is good - this was the main reason for wanting to disable it originally as I could not control it. Either something has changed in the code, or there was something wrong with the install. I am now trying: [fsodevice.kernel_idle] ignore_by_id = lis302 idle = 30 idle_dim = 1 idle_prelock = 1 idle_lock = 1 suspend = 40 plus a default brightness of 100% in /etc/phonefsod.conf (I think, cant check atm) The idea is full brightness for 30 seconds and then instead of abruptly blanking, quickly dim, then wait 10 seconds to suspend just in case I want to use it again. In the short time using these settings, I think either 5 or 3 secs for the last is more than adequate, and 60 seconds for full brightness more user friendly. Why stuff around with doing this? - because the original way suggested to me of disabling dimming was to comment out the entries in /etc/phonefsod.conf which works, but has side effects such as never allowing the display to turn off when requesting cpu only with fsoraw. So yes, I am now using dimming, but not because I want to, but because the phone wont work properly without it :( Why didnt I raise a bug - because I asked about it on irc (I think) and was told it was not going to be changed so put up with it - which I read as raise all the bugs you like - were not changing anything. Yes, I am pissed off at dimming, and I cant see any reason for it. BillK On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 13:11 +0200, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:17 AM, William Kenworthy > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 01:44 +0200, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > I don't like the default dim/idle/lock/suspend values very > much. I > > described my thoughts here: > > http://trac.shr-project.org/trac/ticket/943 > > What I wrote there: > > "Should change to better defaults. Should probably take > longer until > > it dims even a bit, and after that should take less to dim > more, > > and less to dim further, and after screen blank lock > immidiately and > > probably suspend *very* soon after." > > > > And I think it's time to do it, what do you think? > > The values I'm suggesting are: > > idle = 15 > > idle_dim = 5 > > idle_prelock = 5 > > idle_lock = 1 > > suspend = 30 > > > > I think it should take some time (15 seconds) until it > darkens the > > screen. The fact that the screen is dark indicates that no > one is > > using the screen, so it shouldn't wait a lot until the next > dim (5) > > seconds, same rationale for idle_prelock (another dim). > > After the screen is off, we should lock immediately (hence > the 1) and > > after that we need to suspend. > > I haven't decided if we need to suspend immediately, or give > it some > > time (30 seconds of wasting time+bat?) maybe 1 is a better > value. > > > > What do you think? Please share your thoughts. > > -- > > Tom. > > > I have not tried the latest yet - > Well, we haven't changed anything yet, I'm consulting before doing > anything. > > but even using fsoraw, dim still > occurs. > This should not happen, and doesn't happen here. Though anyhow, > consider using quick-settings's toggle for keeping screen alive (i.e > when reading) > > And as far as "nobody using the screen" - how about reading > ebooks, looking files etc > When you read ebooks etc you are using the screen"forever" so dim > changes won't help, you need to either request Display with fsoraw > or use the toggle in quick-settings, either way, it's unrelated to dim > timeouts. > > . You have to keep touching the screen. > Andtangogps etc. > What I said just now is also relevant here. > > It wouln't be so bad if it honoured fsoraws settings, but > it didnt for me. > fsoraw does not have settings, it just requests for the Display > resource, which works perfectly for me an anyone I know, why didn't > you report a bug? > > > Dimming is a stupid, annoying idea that does nothing other > than ... > annoy. > I disagree, dimming is a small undrastic pause between actually > locking screen/going to suspend which are very annoying to "undo". > > After dimming, the screen is unreadable outdoors so just uses > power so what is it for? - I cant see any justification for > having it. > > * have not tried latest as I normally just disable dim on > principle. > Again, we haven't changed defaults yet. > > > BillK > > > > > > > > -- > Tom. > -- William Kenworthy <[email protected]> Home in Perth! _______________________________________________ Shr-User mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shr-project.org/mailman/listinfo/shr-user
