On Tuesday 10 April 2007 4:29 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> ... the appended
> patch goes on top of the previous pnpacpi patch, and should (nyet tested!)
> fix another place I saw that warning.
And here's a tested version. Curiouser and curiouser. I think the mapping
of ACPI tables to sysfs
On Saturday 07 April 2007 1:08 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> By adding a warning over this create-links patch, I found that the
> system in the $SUBJECT patch (and likely every ACPI system) has
> two different nodes that correspond to one ACPI node:
>
> /sys/devices/pci:00 ... pci root no
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 04:13:43PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007 04:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> >SONY_LAPTOP_OLD
>
> There is probably a better name for this -- like SONY_PI_COMPATIBILITY or
> something.
ok, will change asap, I have a couple more patches here that I'l
On Monday 09 April 2007 04:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Resend 3: hopefully this time it will make to the list and the intended
> recipients]
>
> The following patch series is the state of the art of my work toward
> reimplementing sonypi into sony-laptop. Most patches are mostly cosmetic
> to
Use menuconfigs instead of menus, so the whole menu can be disabled at
once instead of going through all options.
Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc5/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
===
--- linux-2.6.21-r
> Speaking for all Intel hardware implemented from pre-history until now,
> deep C-states is the best you can do, and there is no special offline
> mode to save more power.
We don't use deep c states currently; just HLT.
Right now it doesn't make much difference because no multi socket
servers do
On Saturday 07 April 2007 19:38, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Andika Triwidada" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [cc linux-acpi]
>
> > Question: is that normal? I thought power consumption will be
> > automatically reduced if one core offlined.
Known? Yes.
What people would expect? No.
http://bugzilla
