Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 9:47 PM Stefan Blachmann <sblachmann@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would kindly ask to stop pushing for removal of sc.
>

It will die soon enough if it doesn't become giant locked soon...

Warner

At least these long-running vt issues should be solved before removal of sc
> should be considered at all:
> 1. Currently vt BREAKS suspend/resume on nvidia and many other video
> cards, which just work fine with sc
> 2. vt does not support DPMS
> 3. plenty other lesser bugs
> Both things are valid reasons why many people - including me - reject
> using vt on nvidia cards, because using it would factually downgrade the
> computers' capabilities and energy efficiency.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 4:50 AM Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 21:23:42 -0400
>> Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 15:02, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But the operative word there is "still", isn't it ?
>> > >
>> > > There is nothing which prevents vt(4) from doing the right thing is
>> there ?
>> >
>> > Just a simple matter of programming. We should indeed add dpms support
>> to vt.
>> >
>>
>>  I don't think so.
>>  1/ It's useless when you boot with uefi which 100% of the machines
>> produced in the last 5 (10?) years do
>>  2/ If you really want to save power, use drm with the appropriate
>> driver. Even without runtime power management just loading the driver
>> will reduce power consumption on most machines.
>>
>> --
>> Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> <manu@FreeBSD.org>
>>
>>