On Monday, 30 July 2007 08:56, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:45:41PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 27 July 2007 18:33, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > (yes, i think i know what it
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:45:41PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 27 July 2007 18:33, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > (yes, i think i know what it does; writing 1 into the state of the
> > > > framebuffer devic
On Friday, 27 July 2007 18:33, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > (yes, i think i know what it does; writing 1 into the state of the
> > > framebuffer device just disables any drawing - and thus any access
> > > of possibly not reall
On 7/27/07, Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'd guess s2ram.c will be pretty small then:
>
> int main()
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> ;-))
> But this is not the goal of s2ram, as i hopefully already explained
> sufficiently in an earlier mail.
I guess so... Your project.
But I rea
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > (yes, i think i know what it does; writing 1 into the state of the
> > framebuffer device just disables any drawing - and thus any access
> > of possibly not really initialized hardware before running vbe_post
> > etc...)
> > A
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 06:21:56PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 7/27/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (yes, i think i know what it does; writing 1 into the state of the
> > > framebuffer device just disables any drawing - and thus any access
> > > of possibly not really ini
On 7/27/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (yes, i think i know what it does; writing 1 into the state of the
> > framebuffer device just disables any drawing - and thus any access
> > of possibly not really initialized hardware before running vbe_post
> > etc...)
> > At least it
Hi,
On Friday, 27 July 2007 15:27, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while working on https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=293662 and
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=281798 it occured to me that
> including Ubuntu's hack in s2ram might be a good idea.
> It should do no harm -
Hi,
while working on https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=293662 and
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=281798 it occured to me that
including Ubuntu's hack in s2ram might be a good idea.
It should do no harm - they are apparently doing it unconditionally on all
machines.
This coul
