Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Re: time to sleep?
From: Paul Suade (paul.suade_at_laposte.net)
Date: 2002-08-26


I made a mistake about sleep and standby modes. Because those offered by IDE
commands (HD) are inversely defined. So sleep mode is perfectly right and
standby mode too troublesome as you say to use.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Stenberg" <daniel_at_haxx.se>
To: "Rockbox" <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Re: time to sleep?

> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Paul Suade wrote:
>
> > Just a precision, you were speaking about sleep mode, it is a mistake,
you
> > probably speaking about standby mode. Don't use sleep mode but standby
mode
> > to reduce the power consumption because sleep mode shuts down all, i.e,
> > peripheral controlers like timers, external interrupts would be reset,
which
> > is probably not what you want.
>
> Are we talking about the same CPU here? "Hitachi SH-1 Hardware Manual
r5.0"
> section 19.1.1 explains the two modes "Sleep" and "Standby".
>
> And yes, reading this again now, I still think Sleep is the mode we want
to
> use. Standby seems to be more troublesome to use, even if consumes far
less
> power.
>
> Again, Sleep reduces CPU power consumption by about 33% "typcial". I think
> that is enough to motivate usage of it.
>
> Standby goes down to whopping 0.1uA but is harder to awake from and plays
> more tricks with clocks and I/O ports etc. But of course, if you can make
> good use of the standby mode, I'll be very happy!
>
> --
> Daniel "Bagder" Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/
>



Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa