Re: Re: _CST implementation

[Janosch Machowinski <scotch-cGBD8117FJM@public.gmane.org>]

Thomas Renninger schrieb:
> Bruno Ducrot wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 04:11:45PM -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
>>
>>>Stefan Seyfried wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:45:18PM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>IOW, from spec we should not invalidate, but from "common practice" by
>>>>>bios writters, we should invalidate.
>>>>
>>>>What about a "spec_compliant_but_beware_of_stupid_bios_writers" module
>>>>parameter? ;-)
>>>
>>>I fear that would be set to nonzero on every system...
>>>
>>
>>That's the case already.  This is the boot parameter
>>acpi=strict
> 
> 
> I do not think it is a good idea to make this depend on acpi=strict.
> 
> Normally !acpi_strict enables features for some broken BIOS.
> In this case !acpi_strict disables them.
> 
> There still is max_cstates if something goes terribly wrong.
> I never saw such a machine, are there many of them out there?
> 
> Janosch: Did you get the 1001 latency state to work?
> 
The 1001 latency C3 state was in my case from the P_BLK. My Notebook 
worked fine with it, but actually the power consumption was as high as 
in the C2 state.

I would suggest a parameter for disabling _CST, because it is new (and 
buggy) code.

   Janosch


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click