From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>, davej@codemonkey.org.uk
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:23:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200704181723.16241.lenb@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704181615510.18034@localhost.localdomain>
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 flag used to handle this, but that method was BROKEN
> > when the CONFIG_PM_LEGACY #define was added. Today, there are
> > systems (such as the Thinkpad T30) that will not boot if
> > CONFIG_PM_LEGACY is not defined. The reason nobody is complaining
> > is because the distros are currently defining CONFIG_PM_LEGACY.
> > But when you nuke that option and everything under it, this bug will
> > be exposed and some systems will stop booting.
>
> 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 subsystem even
> older than either of them, right?
yeah, it didn't start out that way, the bug was added when the
CONFIG_PM_LEGACY #define was added.
> so all that needs to be done is add
> back in a contention solution of some kind that doesn't rely on that
> ancient system, yes?
Yes, it is a matter of making the variable not go away when
the #define goes away.
> as for that thinkpad t30 situation, well, that's just borked, and
> should be fixed.
yes, the actual failure is that APM mode on the T30 hangs -- and that is
independent of the issue at hand. However, there could be other
failures on other machines when both APM and ACPI think they are active.
> rday
>
> p.s. at the risk of repeating myself repetitively, do we now agree
> that what i was trying to remove *was* adequately ancient? although
> it's clear that it has to be done slightly more carefully than was
> done in my initial patch.
yes, I think so.
> 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 broke it,
but his to-do list is probably even longer than mine.
-Len
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-18 21:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-13 0:33 [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-13 8:09 ` Stephen Rothwell
2007-04-13 8:20 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-13 8:30 ` Stephen Rothwell
2007-04-13 8:50 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-14 12:22 ` {Spam?} " Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-14 13:01 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 19:24 ` Len Brown
2007-04-18 20:23 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 21:23 ` Len Brown [this message]
2007-04-18 23:45 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 23:58 ` Dave Jones
2007-04-19 0:35 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-19 17:27 ` Len Brown
2007-04-13 8:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-04-13 8:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-04-13 9:51 ` David Brownell
2007-04-13 9:51 ` [linux-pm] " David Brownell
2007-04-15 10:23 ` Pavel Machek
2007-04-15 10:23 ` Pavel Machek
2007-04-17 22:12 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-04-17 22:12 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-04-17 22:28 ` David Brownell
2007-04-17 22:28 ` [linux-pm] " David Brownell
2007-04-18 0:46 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 0:46 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 18:11 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-04-18 18:11 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-04-18 18:31 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 18:31 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-04-18 20:10 ` Pavel Machek
2007-04-18 20:10 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200704181723.16241.lenb@kernel.org \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.