On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:29:23PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> Adding some background to this... I did this also because I think the
> different interface to suspend the machine on powerpc is a kernel bug.
Agreed. Seems like there's no valid reason the /sys/power/state node
can't notify the PMU d
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:12:07 +0100
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> first of all, thanks for your efforts.
> The original intent of Tim Dykstra, who removed pm-pmu from the Debian
> pm-utils package, was, that the functionality of pm-pmu is already
> existent in s2ram (from the uswsusp
Matthew William Cox wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:49:38AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
That's not quite correct. Upstream is also broken, as pm-is-supported
doesn't recognize pmu support.
In the interests of getting this fixed, I dug into pm-pmu.c and added
the ability to query the PMU to
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:49:38AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> That's not quite correct. Upstream is also broken, as pm-is-supported
> doesn't recognize pmu support.
In the interests of getting this fixed, I dug into pm-pmu.c and added
the ability to query the PMU to detect if suspending is su
4 matches
Mail list logo
