More advanced power savings (rev. the DPMS extension).

Egbert Eich eich at
Sun Jul 30 01:31:31 PDT 2006

Jim Gettys writes:
 > On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 13:32 +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
 > Egbert,
 > >  > 
 > > The way I see it: when you can get all the information on the client
 > > side you don't have to add timeouts to the Xserver.
 > > You can have a client module that enacts a policy - getting the information
 > > from DAMAGE etc.
 > > This is by far more flexible than a stupid timeout layer in the Xserver.
 > If you turn off the GPU, you'd better have the X server involved, if you
 > want the GPU turned back on again....  You certainly won't like what
 > will happen if X tries to touch a GPU that has been powered down.

Right. You ant to handle it like we handle vt swtiches if an external
process is invovled.

 > And I'm not comfortable with a situation if an external process screws
 > up that you end up with an unusable system.

Well...  right. You can have an external process putting the system to
sleep but act on DAMAGE internally for wakeup.
This would be similar to DPMS - just that it invovles output instead 
of input.
Still an external process can control turning off things - although
this depends, on your system you don't want to wast memory and don't
want to have too many processes sitting around.

 > Similarly for enabling/disabling video outputs.  Again, you can end up
 > with a dead screen.
 > So the X sever better be involved at some level.



More information about the xorg mailing list