Re: apm suspend broken in 2.4.10

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdlab.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

Alex Cruise wrote:
> 
> Mine displays a similar failure, except my strace shows:
> 
>   ioctl(3, APM_IOC_SUSPEND, 0 ) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily
> unavailable)
> 
> I also noticed (as reported by a previous poster) that whether you pass
> "apm=on" or "apm=off" to the kernel, apm gets disabled.  When you don't
> specify a setting, it's enabled.  I had a look at the arch/i386/kernel/apm.c
> in 2.4.10 though, and it seemed to make sense.

Verified here.
APM doesn't install if apm=on or apm=off is used in 2.4.10.

Here's a small patch for it.  With this patch, apm thread,
/proc/apm, misc apm_bios device etc. are created.

~Randy

[-- Attachment #2: apmonoff.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 662 bytes --]

--- linux/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c.org	Mon Sep 17 22:52:35 2001
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c	Thu Sep 27 13:15:33 2001
@@ -1672,7 +1672,7 @@
 		apm_info.realmode_power_off = 1;
 	/* User can override, but default is to trust DMI */
 	if (apm_disabled != -1)
-		apm_info.disabled = 1;
+		apm_info.disabled = apm_disabled;
 
 	/*
 	 * Fix for the Compaq Contura 3/25c which reports BIOS version 0.1
@@ -1699,8 +1699,7 @@
 	}
 
 	if (apm_info.disabled) {
-		if(apm_disabled == 1)
-			printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: disabled on user request.\n");
+		printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: disabled on user request.\n");
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 	if ((smp_num_cpus > 1) && !power_off) {