Talk:Power management/Suspend and hibernate

From ArchWiki
< Talk:Power management
Revision as of 21:00, 16 November 2017 by Edh (talk | contribs) (→‎Is the introduction too long?: Re: I still think the current introduction is just fine but I don't mind if it would be moved around)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Modifying the hibernation mode

Hi, I've experienced a couple of problems with the default "platform" kernel hibernation mode on my laptop (basically, sometimes the hibernation image fails to resume, leading to a reboot), so I've been testing the steps shown here [1]. In fact, changing to "shutdown" mode does work. There is a way to force systemd to use a specific mode/state configuration by means of creating /etc/systemd/sleep.conf according to man systemd-sleep.conf. I'd add this to the wiki, but I'm not sure which is the most appropriate section to add this information, whether Power management#systemd or Power management#Troubleshooting. --Eugenio M. Vigo (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you can put it under Power_management#Power_management_with_systemd, since sleep.conf isn't mentioned at all in the article yet, and the new section could be expanded and generalized. In any case we're always in time to move it somewhere else if needed. — Kynikos (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspend on LynxPoint

I had to disable SLPB and JMC2 too, to avoid instantaneous wakeups from suspend. Should we add this to the list of acpi devices in the "Suspend on LynxPoint" section? Dervomsee (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the introduction too long?

The introduction is much longer than other pages, should we move it to its own section such as "suspending methods"? --Fengchao (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly the introduction is quite lengthy but nevertheless descriptive and it provides the necessary information to understand the following chapters. IMHO I would keep it as it is. -- Edh (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the problem with separate "introduction" sections is that they would still need to be introduced at the top of the page. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It is just a style change, no change to actual content. Currently the whole introduction is above the table of contents. When table of contents is expanded, looks bad from my point of view. Add a section will keep table of contents at the top of page. --Fengchao (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, I already assumed, that you were just intending to move stuff around without changing the content. Nevertheless I still think that the current introduction is the way to go since it is essential for understanding the following content. However feel free to disregard my opinion. I do not feel to strongly about it. -- Edh (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)