Power Saving modes on BBB?
gaborpaller at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 10:57:15 UTC 2015
"would you consider packaging
it and releasing for the community as a kernel snap?"
I am happy to help but I am quite novice in the Snappy process. E.g. I was
not even able to report a bug. :-)
Seriously, for starter, I need to find the exact kernel that Snappy uses
(along with its defconfig for BBB). Then I guess, packaging the Arago
project's (that's the TI Linux project's name) binary firmware as a snap
for Snappy is a non-trivial exercise. I am willing to do that if I get some
help. Mostly pointers. :-)
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Paolo Pisati <paolo.pisati at canonical.com>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:45:25AM +0200, Gábor Paller wrote:
> > Am I right that the entire cpufreq subsystem is also disfunctional on
> > Snappy BBB?
> > Snappy consumes 40% more current on idle prompt (boot completed, no
> > task is running) than the baseline TI SDK and I can't find the
> > scaling files under /sys.
> ubuntu at beaglebone:~$ cat
> conservative ondemand userspace powersave performance
> About the 40% more consumption, how did you get that number? same cpufreq
> governor? same config?
> > Also, bizarrely, if the BBB is entirely shut down, Snappy still
> > around 120 mA while TI SDK goes down to almost 0.
> > This, along with the lack of power-saving modes is pretty much a
> > showstopper for any serious battery-operated application on Snappy.
> But yes, the TI BSP kernel is ahead in terms of support wrt power savings
> on the
> beeaglebone (after all it's their SOC and that's kernel they develop
> compared to upstream (and that's the upstream that we track) - since you
> are so
> interested in the TI kernel and no one has done it yet, would you consider
> it and releasing for the community as a kernel snap?
> I think Olivier or Ricardo can point you to the latest document
> showing how to do that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the snappy-devel