Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• Previous message: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• In reply to: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• Next in thread: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:20:26 +0100, Stuart Tedford wrote:
> Rockbox ver 20020801 ran for 9 hours 25 minutes. This is
> significantly lower than the stock firmware (10 hours 50 minutes),
> and yet RockBox's disk caching is far better than stock - I just
> don't understand.

There's more to the power consumption than just hard disk usage.

> I remember that someone did a current usage test on the stock
> firmware not so long ago. Could someone do this on RockBox too?,
> so we can see where we are using excess power?

I know that the current CVS version (20020802) uses 125 mA when idle,
compared with the 95mA of the stock version.

> (Just a thought... I don't know that much about electronics but how
> often are we refreshing the DRAM? Would this effect power usage?)

Everything affects power consumption. However, rockbox doesn't alter
the DRAM parameters, we use those that the stock firmware sets up
before loading rockbox.

We don't put the CPU to sleep, something that may change the power
consumption a little. But that will have to wait a little, since we
have to change the kernel a lot to accomplish that.

/Linus

-- 
Linus Nielsen Feltzing, linus_at_haxx.se on 2002-08-02

• Next message: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• Previous message: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• In reply to: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• Next in thread: Stuart Tedford: "RE: Battery life"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]