Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Garrett Wollman
< said: [I wrote:] > : And designs based on the Intel PIIX4 will generate SMI# interrupts for > : whichever activities are programmed in the BIOS, completely bypassing > : the traditional interrupt mechanism. > So does that mean if we do disable them at the PIC level we'll be OK? No, it means i

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: > : It's reasonable to assume this, yes. However it's also worth bearing > : in mind that since the BIOS isn't using these interrupts to _detect_ > : activity, turning them off is pretty pointless. > > Then why does the key up event cause the

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Garrett > Wollman writes: > : And designs based on the Intel PIIX4 will generate SMI# interrupts for > : whichever activities are programmed in the BIOS, completely bypassing > : the traditional interrupt mechanism. > > So does that mean if we do disable them at

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : It's reasonable to assume this, yes. However it's also worth bearing : in mind that since the BIOS isn't using these interrupts to _detect_ : activity, turning them off is pretty pointless. Then why does the key up event cause the suspend to

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Garrett Wollman writes: : And designs based on the Intel PIIX4 will generate SMI# interrupts for : whichever activities are programmed in the BIOS, completely bypassing : the traditional interrupt mechanism. So does that mean if we do disable them at the PIC level

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garrett Wollman writes: >> >< said: >> > >> >> Actually, that's almost entirely system-dependant. The BIOS may well >> >> poll the keyboard controller/USB controller, for example. >> > >> >And designs based on

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garrett Wollman writes: > >< said: > > > >> Actually, that's almost entirely system-dependant. The BIOS may well > >> poll the keyboard controller/USB controller, for example. > > > >And designs based on the Intel PIIX4 will generate SMI# interrupts for > >which

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garrett Wollman writes: >< said: > >> Actually, that's almost entirely system-dependant. The BIOS may well >> poll the keyboard controller/USB controller, for example. > >And designs based on the Intel PIIX4 will generate SMI# interrupts for >whichever activities

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-09-01 Thread Garrett Wollman
< said: > Actually, that's almost entirely system-dependant. The BIOS may well > poll the keyboard controller/USB controller, for example. And designs based on the Intel PIIX4 will generate SMI# interrupts for whichever activities are programmed in the BIOS, completely bypassing the traditiona

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-31 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nate Williams writes: > : > I think we need to set the interrupt mask to 0 in the PIC. > : > : I don't think makes any difference, since the APM Bios is in charge of > : what happens at this point, and the BIOS is below the level of the OS. > : > > The theory is

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-31 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nate Williams writes: : > I think we need to set the interrupt mask to 0 in the PIC. : : I don't think makes any difference, since the APM Bios is in charge of : what happens at this point, and the BIOS is below the level of the OS. : The theory is that no more in

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-31 Thread Nate Williams
> : And it seems there still are other devices which wake your PC up in > : 2-3 mins time. > : Hmmm, anyone has ideas? > > I think we need to set the interrupt mask to 0 in the PIC. I don't think makes any difference, since the APM Bios is in charge of what happens at this point, and the BIOS is

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-31 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mitsuru IWASAKI writes: : And it seems there still are other devices which wake your PC up in : 2-3 mins time. : Hmmm, anyone has ideas? I think we need to set the interrupt mask to 0 in the PIC. Or at least disable the interrupts that we know about from a driver p

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-28 Thread Mike Muir
Kazutaka YOKOTA wrote: > The PS/2 mouse generates interrupt when /dev/psm0 is open and > the user moves the mouse. > > If you are running moused or X when you suspend the system, /dev/psm0 > is left open and might generate interrupts. I think modern motherboard > BIOSes have a setup menu that l

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-28 Thread Kazutaka YOKOTA
>> OK. Probably `slept 00:00:00 - 00:00:40' problem was caused by PS/2 >> mouse, I think. Do we need something to do with psm on suspending as >> well as resuming? > >Im not sure anything needs to be done for PS/2.. check out these >results.. The PS/2 mouse generates interrupt when /dev/psm0 is

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-28 Thread Mike Muir
Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote: > OK. Probably `slept 00:00:00 - 00:00:40' problem was caused by PS/2 > mouse, I think. Do we need something to do with psm on suspending as > well as resuming? Im not sure anything needs to be done for PS/2.. check out these results.. > > > > ed1: irq 3 at device 9.0

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-26 Thread Mitsuru IWASAKI
[ CC'ed current again.] > > I suspect some devices generate interrupt during suspending state, > > especially PS/2 mouse. Disabling the device driver or disconnecting > > the device from PC might solve the problem. Could you try one by one? > > > > > psm0: irq 12 on atkbdc0 > > > I had the s

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-24 Thread Mitsuru IWASAKI
Hi, I'd like to have full output of dmesg to investigate hardware interference in apm. Could you send me it later? > 'apm -Z' for standby jumps into standby mode for like.. an instant, then > comes right back out (while playing mp3) [snip] > 'zzz' or 'apm -z' for suspend jumps into suspend mode

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-24 Thread Mike Muir
Yeh, i just got all the latest sources (as of 24th August) and made em: $Id: apm.c,v 1.103 1999/08/23 20:58:36 phk Exp $ So yes i do have that recent version, but my problems persist. :( Nick Hibma wrote: > > Are you running CURRENT? > > Could you check whether you have at least rev. 101 of >

Re: followup to apm problems.

1999-08-23 Thread Nick Hibma
Are you running CURRENT? Could you check whether you have at least rev. 101 of src/sys/i386/apm/apm.c Nick 1.101 Sun Aug 22 14:48:00 1999 UTC by iwasaki Diffs to 1.100 Fix `key release event prevent suspend' problem. We don't need `sleep 1; zzz' trick now. - APM BIOS Call for suspend/stan

followup to apm problems.

1999-08-23 Thread Mike Muir
Ive been following the apm problems and changes in apm threads in hope that I would fix the problems that I too am having. I am using the latest sources for apm, apmconf and apmd, as well as the kernel. (as of 23/8/99, NZST, which is yesterday evening) dmesg is: apm0: on motherboard apm: APM B