[ltp] T41p suspend to RAM on 2.6.11.3

[Daniel Stodden]

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:43 +0100, Bob Alexander wrote:
> Daniel Stodden wrote:
> > i've just written a small script to measure sleep power consumption on
> > each suspend to ram. results below, though i did not take the full 15
> > minutes.
> > 
> > Mar 17 09:59:42 localhost acpi: enter: 1111049982 s, 40340 mWh
> > Mar 17 10:07:38 localhost acpi: leave: 1111050458 s, 40270 mWh
> > Mar 17 10:07:38 localhost acpi: power consumption: 70 mWh / 476 s = 529
> > mWh/h
> > 
> > that already seems to roughly match the approximate 600mWh targeted by
> > the patches theo ts'o sent around yesterday.
> > 
> 
> Well. You're a lucky guy. Happy for you. Do you use radeon frame buffer ?

yes. the one included with 2.6.11.3.

seems to live along with the xorg radeon_drv quite nicely. i'm
experiencing some weird color rotation effects from time to time,
though. deterministically when running vmware (which probably translates
to: messing around with dga mode). this goes away when switching to
console forth and back.

btw: has anyone been successful getting bootsplash to work with
radeonfb? not like any of this stuff affects my elsewhere-discussed
perception of 'perfect' :}

i've seen roughly that same palette problem when installing bootsplash
themes. that's why i suppose the blame is more or less up to radeonfb.

> > 
> >>Are you using an unpatched 2.6.11.3 kernel ?
> > 
> > 
> > currently based on vanilla 2.6.11.3 + swsusp2 + a small number of
> > patches totally unrelated to power management. non-stock modules, e.g.
> > recent ibm-acpi, not counted as patches.
> > 
> > which would you suggest? the patches theo ts'o sent yesterday?
> > 
> > regards,
> > daniel
> > 
> 
> I have a very similar setup.
> 
> 2.6.11.4 + swsusp2 + ibm_acpi + radeonfb power drain patch + one acpi 
> patch. system very stable but drain SLIGHTLY higer in the 800mW/hour range.

as updated above: i currently get about 660mW, after slightly less than
an hour in suspend state. which thinkpad model do _you_ run?

i'm not sure what level of precision one can expect from the capacity
sensors, but isn't it possible that this is rather a matter of battery
age (wrt sensor precision) and notebook series than an actual driver
problem? apart from the 3600 mW effect attacked by the power drain
patch, i mean.

> Will publish the patches I am using and kernel config alter on this day 
> if I manage.

ok, i might give it a try to see if it still makes a difference. just
curious. probably not, or am i wrong here?

thanks for the comments,
daniel