On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > (3) modifies the output of /proc/apm when power status reporting is
> > disabled - on reflection, maybe this wasn't such a smart thing to do
> > (could royally stuff anybody who is automagically parsing /proc/apm?)
>
> Please dont - it correctly reports
> (3) modifies the output of /proc/apm when power status reporting is
> disabled - on reflection, maybe this wasn't such a smart thing to do
> (could royally stuff anybody who is automagically parsing /proc/apm?)
Please dont - it correctly reports 'dunno' right now
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Neale Banks wrote:
[...]
> New diff to follow, hopefully tomorrow.
New diff against unmolested 2.2.18pre24 (appears to apply cleanly to
2.2.18 also) is attached.
Main points:
(1) adds a configure item for buggy BIOS (i.e. that can't be automagically
detected).
(2)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Neale Banks wrote:
[...]
> Diff against unmolested 2.2.18pre24 is attached.
Hold that one, I just found another case I haven't covered: booting with
apm=debug causes oops and nukes the bootup. Reading the source, I can't
see how this doesn't also affect the "dell_crap"
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Neale Banks wrote:
[...]
Diff against unmolested 2.2.18pre24 is attached.
Hold that one, I just found another case I haven't covered: booting with
apm=debug causes oops and nukes the bootup. Reading the source, I can't
see how this doesn't also affect the "dell_crap" case
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Neale Banks wrote:
[...]
New diff to follow, hopefully tomorrow.
New diff against unmolested 2.2.18pre24 (appears to apply cleanly to
2.2.18 also) is attached.
Main points:
(1) adds a configure item for buggy BIOS (i.e. that can't be automagically
detected).
(2) catches
(3) modifies the output of /proc/apm when power status reporting is
disabled - on reflection, maybe this wasn't such a smart thing to do
(could royally stuff anybody who is automagically parsing /proc/apm?)
Please dont - it correctly reports 'dunno' right now
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
(3) modifies the output of /proc/apm when power status reporting is
disabled - on reflection, maybe this wasn't such a smart thing to do
(could royally stuff anybody who is automagically parsing /proc/apm?)
Please dont - it correctly reports 'dunno'
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Is it "obvious" that I'm dealing with the same or similar kind of
> > bugginess here?
>
> Obvious no, but its a pretty good guess.
FWIW, I now get:
-
neale@gull:~$ cat /proc/apm
1.13 1.1 0x03 0xff 0xff 0xff -1% -1 ?
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Is it "obvious" that I'm dealing with the same or similar kind of
bugginess here?
Obvious no, but its a pretty good guess.
FWIW, I now get:
-
neale@gull:~$ cat /proc/apm
1.13 1.1 0x03 0xff 0xff 0xff -1% -1 ?
> Is it "obvious" that I'm dealing with the same or similar kind of
> bugginess here?
Obvious no, but its a pretty good guess.
>
> That being the case, any reason I can't/shouldn't put in a function
> similar to apm_battery_horked(), and call/run it based on a config-time
> variable?
None at
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > OK, I did this (at least I think I got it right: the patch was happy) but
> > I can't see anything resembling DMI strings (even after I removed
>
> Ok your machine probably doesnt have DMI then. That unfortunately means its
> hard to identify the
> OK, I did this (at least I think I got it right: the patch was happy) but
> I can't see anything resembling DMI strings (even after I removed
Ok your machine probably doesnt have DMI then. That unfortunately means its
hard to identify the specific machine
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
[...]
> Please boot 2.2.18pre24 (not pre25) on the machine and send me its DMI strings
> printed at boot time. I'll add it to the 'stupid morons who cant program and
> wouldnt know QA if it hit them on the head with a mallet' list
OK, I did this (at least I
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
[...]
Please boot 2.2.18pre24 (not pre25) on the machine and send me its DMI strings
printed at boot time. I'll add it to the 'stupid morons who cant program and
wouldnt know QA if it hit them on the head with a mallet' list
OK, I did this (at least I
OK, I did this (at least I think I got it right: the patch was happy) but
I can't see anything resembling DMI strings (even after I removed
Ok your machine probably doesnt have DMI then. That unfortunately means its
hard to identify the specific machine
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
OK, I did this (at least I think I got it right: the patch was happy) but
I can't see anything resembling DMI strings (even after I removed
Ok your machine probably doesnt have DMI then. That unfortunately means its
hard to identify the specific
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Is there anything else I can contribute?
> >
> > The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and
> > a ballistic missile.
>
> ;-)
>
> > Please boot 2.2.18pre24 (not pre25) [...]
>
> Please pardon the naive question: is
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Is there anything else I can contribute?
>
> The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and
> a ballistic missile.
;-)
> Please boot 2.2.18pre24 (not pre25) [...]
Please pardon the naive question: is pre-patch-2.2.18-24 to be
> I compiled the Debian distribution of 2.2.18pre21 source on and for a
> AcerNote-950, with APM enabled.
>
> All is fine except that I can reliably "oops" it simply by trying to read
> from /proc/apm (e.g. cat /proc/apm).
>
> oops output and ksymoops-2.3.4 output is attached.
>
> Is there
I compiled the Debian distribution of 2.2.18pre21 source on and for a
AcerNote-950, with APM enabled.
All is fine except that I can reliably "oops" it simply by trying to read
from /proc/apm (e.g. cat /proc/apm).
oops output and ksymoops-2.3.4 output is attached.
Is there anything
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Is there anything else I can contribute?
The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and
a ballistic missile.
;-)
Please boot 2.2.18pre24 (not pre25) [...]
Please pardon the naive question: is pre-patch-2.2.18-24 to be applied
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Is there anything else I can contribute?
The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and
a ballistic missile.
;-)
Please boot 2.2.18pre24 (not pre25) [...]
Please pardon the naive question: is pre-patch-2.2.18-24 to
Hi Stephen,
I presume this should be going to you, as the person named in
arch/i386/kernel/apm.c - if not please redirect/ignore as appropriate.
I compiled the Debian distribution of 2.2.18pre21 source on and for a
AcerNote-950, with APM enabled.
All is fine except that I can reliably "oops"
Hi Stephen,
I presume this should be going to you, as the person named in
arch/i386/kernel/apm.c - if not please redirect/ignore as appropriate.
I compiled the Debian distribution of 2.2.18pre21 source on and for a
AcerNote-950, with APM enabled.
All is fine except that I can reliably "oops"
25 matches
Mail list logo
