On Wednesday 18 April 2007 20:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > > > p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
> > > > myself always welcome. :-)
> > >
> > >
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 20:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
myself always welcome. :-)
well, I'm sorry that
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > > p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
> > > myself always welcome. :-)
> >
> > well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
> > and
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
> > myself always welcome. :-)
>
> well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
> and done nothing about it. I did ping davej when he
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 April 2007 16:23, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > ok, i get it now and -- correct me if i'm wrong -- all my legacy PM
> > removal patch was doing was exposing a design boo-boo in which
> > APM/ACPI contention was being handled by a macro in a
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 16:23, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> > Here is how it should work. CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_APM should both
> > available in a kernel build. However, at boot time, of ACPI is
> > active, then APM should be disabled.
> >
> > The
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> On Saturday 14 April 2007 09:01, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen
Hi!
> >>One reason was that there are (were?) a number of machines which only
> >>powered
> >>down properly using apm. It was discussed as part of shutting down after
> >>power
> >>failure when your UPS is running out of power.
> >>
> >
> >um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM?
On Saturday 14 April 2007 09:01, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One thing that comes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
...
> > um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM? two different
> > issues, no?
> Since the patches are going into apm.c and apm was used for suspend
> and poweroff before ACPI was a feature of the hardware, I assume
>
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
...
um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM? two different
issues, no?
Since the patches are going into apm.c and apm was used for suspend
and poweroff before ACPI was a feature of the hardware, I assume
there's a
On Saturday 14 April 2007 09:01, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that you will
Hi!
One reason was that there are (were?) a number of machines which only
powered
down properly using apm. It was discussed as part of shutting down after
power
failure when your UPS is running out of power.
um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM? two different issues,
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Saturday 14 April 2007 09:01, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 16:23, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
Here is how it should work. CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_APM should both
available in a kernel build. However, at boot time, of ACPI is
active, then APM should be disabled.
The pm_active flag used
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 16:23, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
ok, i get it now and -- correct me if i'm wrong -- all my legacy PM
removal patch was doing was exposing a design boo-boo in which
APM/ACPI contention was being handled by a macro in a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
myself always welcome. :-)
well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
and done nothing about it. I did ping davej when he broke it,
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
myself always welcome. :-)
well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
and done nothing
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > [appropriate CCs added]
> >
> > On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
> > > tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:12 pm, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> One reason was that there are (were?) a number of machines which only
> powered down properly using apm. It was discussed as part of shutting
> down after power failure when your UPS is running out of power.
At least the notification
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as "DEPRECATED", while the
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as DEPRECATED, while the help
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:12 pm, Bill Davidsen wrote:
One reason was that there are (were?) a number of machines which only
powered down properly using apm. It was discussed as part of shutting
down after power failure when your UPS is running out of power.
At least the notification
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry
Hi!
> > just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
> > tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
> > PM_LEGACY lists it as "DEPRECATED", while the help screen calls it
> > "obsolete." that's a good sign that it's getting close to the time
>
Hi!
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as DEPRECATED, while the help screen calls it
obsolete. that's a good sign that it's getting close to the time
for it to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to
> > > make sure that only one of
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to
> > > make sure that only one of
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to
make sure that only one of ACPI and APM get
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to
make sure that only one of ACPI and APM get
On Friday 13 April 2007 1:22 am, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [appropriate CCs added]
>
> On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
> > tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to make sure
> > > that only one of
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to make sure
> > that only one of ACPI and APM get initialized ...
>
> i don't see how that
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:33:16 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > just something i threw together, not in final form, but it
> > represents tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the
> > menuconfig entry for
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
> tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
> PM_LEGACY lists it as "DEPRECATED", while the help screen calls it
>
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:33:16 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
> tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
> PM_LEGACY lists it as "DEPRECATED", while the help screen
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as DEPRECATED, while the help screen calls it
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as DEPRECATED, while the help screen calls it
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it
represents tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the
menuconfig entry for PM_LEGACY lists it
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to make sure
that only one of ACPI and APM get initialized ...
i don't see how that has anything to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to make sure
that only one of ACPI and APM get
On Friday 13 April 2007 1:22 am, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as "DEPRECATED", while the help screen calls it
"obsolete." that's a good sign that it's getting close to the time
for it to go, and the
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for
PM_LEGACY lists it as DEPRECATED, while the help screen calls it
obsolete. that's a good sign that it's getting close to the time
for it to go, and the
46 matches
Mail list logo