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. :-)
> > >
> > > wel
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 bro
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 su
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
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 Rot
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
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
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
> the
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 the
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 menuco
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 m
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
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
> >
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 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 ha
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_LE
[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 calls
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 r
23 matches
Mail list logo
