On 07/28/2012 06:11 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:42:53 -0400
> Len Brown wrote:
>
>> From: Len Brown
>>
>> The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
>> is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
>> on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break.
>
> You mean
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:42:53 -0400
Len Brown wrote:
> From: Len Brown
>
> The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
> is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
> on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break.
You mean "doesn't fit my current plan" I think. I see almost no
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:42:53 -0400
Len Brown l...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break.
You mean doesn't fit my current
On 07/28/2012 06:11 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:42:53 -0400
Len Brown l...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
on the (decades old) machines it doesn't
From: Len Brown
The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break.
After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
simply run default_idle() and HALT, rather than calling
into the BIOS from
From: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break.
After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
simply run default_idle() and HALT, rather than calling
6 matches
Mail list logo
