Re: kernel apm code (PR#128)

2001-03-27 Thread sfr

Hi,

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Wed Mar 28 05:06:59 2001
> 
>  David Balazic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > While isn't this merged into the official kernel ?
> 
> The maintainer hasn't the time to do it. He promised me he would in

True.

> February, when I telephone, but hasn't bothered to do anything

I am sorry about that, but I have been very busy among other things
changing jobs (which is always a pain and time consuming).

> AFAICS. I hacked together the following patch for it a while ago,
> which updated APM_IOC_REJECT for slightly more recent kernels (be
> warned, I think I made some mistakes)

Thanks for this, I will review it and post a patch based on it (with
due accredition of course).

> I made a (IMHO) better version called pmpolicy, based on different
> principles. More information is available at
> 
> http://john.snoop.dk/programs/linux/offbutton/
> 
> The most recent version of the patch (for 2.4.2) is not yet uploaded
> however - mail me if you want it. It has not been included in the
> kernel, because the APM maintainer Stephen Rothwell didn't like the
> idea of me implementing it, as some people at linuxcare (including
> Stephen) want to do it differently themselves. However this

I obviously took too long a breath last time you said this ...

I did not say the I did not "like the idea of me implementing it, as
some people at linuxcare (including Stephen) want to do it differently
themselves".  What I said the first time was that I preferred the
idea of a user mode daemon interacting with the kernel not the kernel
forking and execing a new process for every event.

The fact that I was speaking to one of my coworkers about a "better"
interface encompassing all the current power management implemetations
in the kernel (currently at least 4) is a side issue.  These discussions
have progressed and will be continued at the 2.5 Developers kickoff
this weekend.

It is important when implementing an API (and that is what we are doing)
to try to get it as right and stable as possible because other developers
do not like interfaces changing ...

> "political" reason aside, Alan Cox says it changes too much for a

Politics doesn't enter into it (as far as I am concerned).

> stable release so I guess it's not going in.

This is true ...

Cheers,
Stephen

P.S. Just so you know, I probably won't have acces to my email for a few
days (it is a long way to San Jose).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



Re: Incorrect mdelay() results on Power Managed Machines x86

2001-03-23 Thread sfr

From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > On the ThinkPad 600E (at least), we get a Power Status Change APM event.
> 
> Any reason we couldn't recalibrate the bogomips on a power status change,
> at least for laptops we know appear to need it (I can make the DMI code look
> for matches there..)

No reason at all ... I'll have a look.  I don't have my ThinkPad any more
(as of yesterday) so someone will have to supply the DMI info to match.
I will add another field to the apm_info structure that the DMI code can set
and then just test for it in the APM event loop.

Note, however, that there will still be a latency of up to a second
before we discover this situation as that is how often we poll the
BIOS for events.

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



Re: Incorrect mdelay() results on Power Managed Machines x86

2001-03-22 Thread sfr

> Boot with the 'notsc' option is one approach. We certainly could recalibrate
> the clock if we could get events out of ACPI, APM or some other source. Maybe
> someone at IBM knows something on the thinkpad front here. If there is for
> example an additional apm event or irq we can enable for the thinkpads to see
> the speed change we can make it work

On the ThinkPad 600E (at least), we get a Power Status Change APM event.

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

P.S. We actually get two of these events each time we remove or insert the
power cord ...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/