[PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Stephen Rothwell]

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    4 +---
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

I no longer have access to any hardware that uses APM and have not
provided real maintenance for several years.  Hopefully someone with the
hardware or energy will step forward if the driver is to be kept.

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 749f9cd..61f9948 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -548,10 +548,8 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	sound/aoa/
 
 APM DRIVER
-M:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
 L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
-W:	http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
-S:	Supported
+S:	Orphan
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
 F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h
 
-- 
1.7.4.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Stephen Rothwell]

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    4 +---
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

I no longer have access to any hardware that uses APM and have not
provided real maintenance for several years.  Hopefully someone with the
hardware or energy will step forward if the driver is to be kept.

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 749f9cd..61f9948 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -548,10 +548,8 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	sound/aoa/
 
 APM DRIVER
-M:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
 L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
-W:	http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
-S:	Supported
+S:	Orphan
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
 F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h
 
-- 
1.7.4.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS |    4 +---
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> I no longer have access to any hardware that uses APM and have not
> provided real maintenance for several years.  Hopefully someone with the
> hardware or energy will step forward if the driver is to be kept.
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 749f9cd..61f9948 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -548,10 +548,8 @@ S:	Maintained
>  F:	sound/aoa/
>  
>  APM DRIVER
> -M:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>  L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
> -W:	http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
> -S:	Supported
> +S:	Orphan
>  F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
>  F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h

I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time to 
time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to git log 
it's really low effort anyway :)

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS |    4 +---
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> I no longer have access to any hardware that uses APM and have not
> provided real maintenance for several years.  Hopefully someone with the
> hardware or energy will step forward if the driver is to be kept.
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 749f9cd..61f9948 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -548,10 +548,8 @@ S:	Maintained
>  F:	sound/aoa/
>  
>  APM DRIVER
> -M:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>  L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
> -W:	http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
> -S:	Supported
> +S:	Orphan
>  F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
>  F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h

I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time to 
time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to git log 
it's really low effort anyway :)

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]

Hi Jiri,

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:44:38 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time to 
> time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to git log 
> it's really low effort anyway :)

If you want it, its yours :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]

Hi Jiri,

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:44:38 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time to 
> time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to git log 
> it's really low effort anyway :)

If you want it, its yours :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> 
> If you want it, its yours :-)

Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
some care when necessary.




From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH] APM: take over maintainership

Commit 04a6553f076 ("apm: orphan the driver") Orphaned the APM
driver as Stephen is not willing/able to maintain it any more.

As I still have some hardware that is using APM and running 2.6,
I can take it over.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 8aa1cac..758a690 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -548,8 +548,9 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	sound/aoa/
 
 APM DRIVER
-L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
-S:	Orphan
+M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
+L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
+S:	Maintained
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
 F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h
 
-- 
1.7.3.1

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> 
> If you want it, its yours :-)

Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
some care when necessary.




From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH] APM: take over maintainership

Commit 04a6553f076 ("apm: orphan the driver") Orphaned the APM
driver as Stephen is not willing/able to maintain it any more.

As I still have some hardware that is using APM and running 2.6,
I can take it over.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 8aa1cac..758a690 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -548,8 +548,9 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	sound/aoa/
 
 APM DRIVER
-L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
-S:	Orphan
+M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
+L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
+S:	Maintained
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
 F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h
 
-- 
1.7.3.1

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:05 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> > If you want it, its yours :-)
> Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
> some care when necessary.
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
[]
> @@ -548,8 +548,9 @@ S:	Maintained
>  F:	sound/aoa/
>  
>  APM DRIVER
> -L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
> -S:	Orphan
> +M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> +L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Please don't add L: LKML as it's the default
and it could confuse people that read the file
and see some sections with LKML and other without
and may think that LKML is somehow optional.

> +S:	Maintained

If you're not actively maintaining it, maybe
S:	Odd Fixes
instead?

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:05 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> > If you want it, its yours :-)
> Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
> some care when necessary.
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
[]
> @@ -548,8 +548,9 @@ S:	Maintained
>  F:	sound/aoa/
>  
>  APM DRIVER
> -L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
> -S:	Orphan
> +M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> +L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Please don't add L: LKML as it's the default
and it could confuse people that read the file
and see some sections with LKML and other without
and may think that LKML is somehow optional.

> +S:	Maintained

If you're not actively maintaining it, maybe
S:	Odd Fixes
instead?

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Joe Perches wrote:

> > > > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > > > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > > > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> > > If you want it, its yours :-)
> > Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
> > some care when necessary.
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> []
> > @@ -548,8 +548,9 @@ S:	Maintained
> >  F:	sound/aoa/
> >  
> >  APM DRIVER
> > -L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
> > -S:	Orphan
> > +M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> > +L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Please don't add L: LKML as it's the default
> and it could confuse people that read the file
> and see some sections with LKML and other without
> and may think that LKML is somehow optional.
> 
> > +S:	Maintained
> 
> If you're not actively maintaining it, maybe
> S:	Odd Fixes
> instead?

Whatever ...



From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH] APM: take over maintainership

Commit 04a6553f076 ("apm: orphan the driver") Orphaned the APM
driver as Stephen is not willing/able to maintain it any more.

As I still have some hardware that is using APM and running 2.6,
I can take it over.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 8aa1cac..a8f2705 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -548,8 +548,8 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	sound/aoa/
 
 APM DRIVER
-L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
-S:	Orphan
+M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
+S:	Odd Fixes
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
 F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h
 
-- 
1.7.3.1

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Joe Perches wrote:

> > > > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > > > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > > > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> > > If you want it, its yours :-)
> > Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
> > some care when necessary.
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> []
> > @@ -548,8 +548,9 @@ S:	Maintained
> >  F:	sound/aoa/
> >  
> >  APM DRIVER
> > -L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
> > -S:	Orphan
> > +M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> > +L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Please don't add L: LKML as it's the default
> and it could confuse people that read the file
> and see some sections with LKML and other without
> and may think that LKML is somehow optional.
> 
> > +S:	Maintained
> 
> If you're not actively maintaining it, maybe
> S:	Odd Fixes
> instead?

Whatever ...



From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH] APM: take over maintainership

Commit 04a6553f076 ("apm: orphan the driver") Orphaned the APM
driver as Stephen is not willing/able to maintain it any more.

As I still have some hardware that is using APM and running 2.6,
I can take it over.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 8aa1cac..a8f2705 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -548,8 +548,8 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	sound/aoa/
 
 APM DRIVER
-L:	linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org
-S:	Orphan
+M:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
+S:	Odd Fixes
 F:	arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
 F:	include/linux/apm_bios.h
 
-- 
1.7.3.1

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:05:14PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> > 
> > If you want it, its yours :-)
> 
> Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
> some care when necessary.

FWIW
Since Len plans some larger changes to the idle code 
(moving everything to cpuidle) active care may be needed soon.

Effectively it would need a APM cpuidle driver.

Just that you know what you're signing up for...

-Andi

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:05:14PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > > I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
> > > to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
> > > git log it's really low effort anyway :)
> > 
> > If you want it, its yours :-)
> 
> Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
> some care when necessary.

FWIW
Since Len plans some larger changes to the idle code 
(moving everything to cpuidle) active care may be needed soon.

Effectively it would need a APM cpuidle driver.

Just that you know what you're signing up for...

-Andi

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/28/2011 10:45 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:05:14PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>>> I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
>>>> to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
>>>> git log it's really low effort anyway :)
>>>
>>> If you want it, its yours :-)
>>
>> Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
>> some care when necessary.
> 
> FWIW
> Since Len plans some larger changes to the idle code 
> (moving everything to cpuidle) active care may be needed soon.
> 
> Effectively it would need a APM cpuidle driver.
> 
> Just that you know what you're signing up for...
> 

Or we phase out the APM effort by only supporting it for poweroff, for
example.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/28/2011 10:45 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:05:14PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>>> I still have some hardware that uses APM and put a new 2.6 on it time 
>>>> to time, so I can take this driver over if you want to. According to 
>>>> git log it's really low effort anyway :)
>>>
>>> If you want it, its yours :-)
>>
>> Not really fighting for maintaining it actively, but can certainly give it 
>> some care when necessary.
> 
> FWIW
> Since Len plans some larger changes to the idle code 
> (moving everything to cpuidle) active care may be needed soon.
> 
> Effectively it would need a APM cpuidle driver.
> 
> Just that you know what you're signing up for...
> 

Or we phase out the APM effort by only supporting it for poweroff, for
example.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Andi Kleen]

> Or we phase out the APM effort by only supporting it for poweroff, for
> example.

Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old 
laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
issue.

Not sure about suspend, screen saver etc. I suppose those could
be kept as frozen legacy features. At least until someone else
wants to redesign those parts too.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Andi Kleen]

> Or we phase out the APM effort by only supporting it for poweroff, for
> example.

Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old 
laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
issue.

Not sure about suspend, screen saver etc. I suppose those could
be kept as frozen legacy features. At least until someone else
wants to redesign those parts too.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/28/2011 11:21 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Or we phase out the APM effort by only supporting it for poweroff, for
>> example.
> 
> Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old 
> laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> issue.
> 
> Not sure about suspend, screen saver etc. I suppose those could
> be kept as frozen legacy features. At least until someone else
> wants to redesign those parts too.
> 

Since poweroff applies even to stationary systems, it's probably the
most important bit.  Suspend/resume the second most important.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/28/2011 11:21 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Or we phase out the APM effort by only supporting it for poweroff, for
>> example.
> 
> Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old 
> laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> issue.
> 
> Not sure about suspend, screen saver etc. I suppose those could
> be kept as frozen legacy features. At least until someone else
> wants to redesign those parts too.
> 

Since poweroff applies even to stationary systems, it's probably the
most important bit.  Suspend/resume the second most important.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old
> laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> issue.

Agreed. Especially since I'm not at all convinced that APM CPU idling
ever really worked in the first place.

And as you say, it's not a catastrophic failure even if we were to
remove it, and even if it were to have mattered on those old laptops
years ago. I think we can happily say "not worth worrying about" when
it comes to APM_CPU_IDLE.

And shutdown, suspend and screensaver should all be much easier to
continue to support - they shouldn't have any serious infrastructure
issues.

                       Linus

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old
> laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> issue.

Agreed. Especially since I'm not at all convinced that APM CPU idling
ever really worked in the first place.

And as you say, it's not a catastrophic failure even if we were to
remove it, and even if it were to have mattered on those old laptops
years ago. I think we can happily say "not worth worrying about" when
it comes to APM_CPU_IDLE.

And shutdown, suspend and screensaver should all be much easier to
continue to support - they shouldn't have any serious infrastructure
issues.

                       Linus

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old
> > laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> > long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> > issue.
> 
> Agreed. Especially since I'm not at all convinced that APM CPU idling
> ever really worked in the first place.
> 
> And as you say, it's not a catastrophic failure even if we were to
> remove it, and even if it were to have mattered on those old laptops
> years ago. I think we can happily say "not worth worrying about" when
> it comes to APM_CPU_IDLE.
> 
> And shutdown, suspend and screensaver should all be much easier to
> continue to support - they shouldn't have any serious infrastructure
> issues.

APM_CPU_IDLE removal doesn't really sound as a disaster, yes. I doubt 
anyone would even notice.

So deprecating it altogether with planned Len's code reshuffling seems 
like reasonable aproach to me.

_SUSPEND, poweroff and probably _STANDBY are the parts I would care much 
more about.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable.  resumably even if the old
> > laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> > long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> > issue.
> 
> Agreed. Especially since I'm not at all convinced that APM CPU idling
> ever really worked in the first place.
> 
> And as you say, it's not a catastrophic failure even if we were to
> remove it, and even if it were to have mattered on those old laptops
> years ago. I think we can happily say "not worth worrying about" when
> it comes to APM_CPU_IDLE.
> 
> And shutdown, suspend and screensaver should all be much easier to
> continue to support - they shouldn't have any serious infrastructure
> issues.

APM_CPU_IDLE removal doesn't really sound as a disaster, yes. I doubt 
anyone would even notice.

So deprecating it altogether with planned Len's code reshuffling seems 
like reasonable aproach to me.

_SUSPEND, poweroff and probably _STANDBY are the parts I would care much 
more about.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

[PATCH] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle(), and its use of pm_idle

[Len Brown]

From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
is problematic.

After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
simply run default_idle() and HALT without calling
into the BIOS from their idle loop.

This deletes a much-maligned modular user of the (pm_idle)()
function pointer.

Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
---
Jiri,
If you can review, test, ack, that would be great.
I'll probably end up shipping this via the idle tree
because subsequent patches to delete pm_idle
will depend on it.

thanks,
-Len

 arch/x86/Kconfig         |   11 --
 arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c |  232 ----------------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 243 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index d5ed94d..681bb25 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1809,17 +1809,6 @@ config APM_DO_ENABLE
 	  T400CDT. This is off by default since most machines do fine without
 	  this feature.
 
-config APM_CPU_IDLE
-	bool "Make CPU Idle calls when idle"
-	---help---
-	  Enable calls to APM CPU Idle/CPU Busy inside the kernel's idle loop.
-	  On some machines, this can activate improved power savings, such as
-	  a slowed CPU clock rate, when the machine is idle. These idle calls
-	  are made after the idle loop has run for some length of time (e.g.,
-	  333 mS). On some machines, this will cause a hang at boot time or
-	  whenever the CPU becomes idle. (On machines with more than one CPU,
-	  this option does nothing.)
-
 config APM_DISPLAY_BLANK
 	bool "Enable console blanking using APM"
 	---help---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
index 0e4f24c..5bc37aa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
@@ -175,8 +175,6 @@
  *         Ignore first resume after we generate our own resume event
  *         after a suspend (Thomas Hood)
  *         Daemonize now gets rid of our controlling terminal (sfr).
- *         CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE now just affects the default value of
- *         idle_threshold (sfr).
  *         Change name of kernel apm daemon (as it no longer idles) (sfr).
  *   1.16ac: Fix up SMP support somewhat. You can now force SMP on and we
  *	   make _all_ APM calls on the CPU#0. Fix unsafe sign bug.
@@ -261,12 +259,6 @@ extern int (*console_blank_hook)(int);
  *	    [no-]smp			Use apm even on an SMP box
  *	    bounce[-_]interval=<n>	number of ticks to ignore suspend
  *	    				bounces
- *          idle[-_]threshold=<n>       System idle percentage above which to
- *                                      make APM BIOS idle calls. Set it to
- *                                      100 to disable.
- *          idle[-_]period=<n>          Period (in 1/100s of a second) over
- *                                      which the idle percentage is
- *                                      calculated.
  */
 
 /* KNOWN PROBLEM MACHINES:
@@ -356,26 +348,12 @@ struct apm_user {
 #define APM_BIOS_MAGIC		0x4101
 
 /*
- * idle percentage above which bios idle calls are done
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE
-#define DEFAULT_IDLE_THRESHOLD	95
-#else
-#define DEFAULT_IDLE_THRESHOLD	100
-#endif
-#define DEFAULT_IDLE_PERIOD	(100 / 3)
-
-/*
  * Local variables
  */
 static struct {
 	unsigned long	offset;
 	unsigned short	segment;
 } apm_bios_entry;
-static int clock_slowed;
-static int idle_threshold __read_mostly = DEFAULT_IDLE_THRESHOLD;
-static int idle_period __read_mostly = DEFAULT_IDLE_PERIOD;
-static int set_pm_idle;
 static int suspends_pending;
 static int standbys_pending;
 static int ignore_sys_suspend;
@@ -805,165 +783,6 @@ static int set_system_power_state(u_short state)
 }
 
 /**
- *	apm_do_idle	-	perform power saving
- *
- *	This function notifies the BIOS that the processor is (in the view
- *	of the OS) idle. It returns -1 in the event that the BIOS refuses
- *	to handle the idle request. On a success the function returns 1
- *	if the BIOS did clock slowing or 0 otherwise.
- */
-
-static int apm_do_idle(void)
-{
-	u32 eax;
-	u8 ret = 0;
-	int idled = 0;
-	int polling;
-	int err = 0;
-
-	polling = !!(current_thread_info()->status & TS_POLLING);
-	if (polling) {
-		current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
-		/*
-		 * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
-		 * test NEED_RESCHED:
-		 */
-		smp_mb();
-	}
-	if (!need_resched()) {
-		idled = 1;
-		ret = apm_bios_call_simple(APM_FUNC_IDLE, 0, 0, &eax, &err);
-	}
-	if (polling)
-		current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
-
-	if (!idled)
-		return 0;
-
-	if (ret) {
-		static unsigned long t;
-
-		/* This always fails on some SMP boards running UP kernels.
-		 * Only report the failure the first 5 times.
-		 */
-		if (++t < 5) {
-			printk(KERN_DEBUG "apm_do_idle failed (%d)\n", err);
-			t = jiffies;
-		}
-		return -1;
-	}
-	clock_slowed = (apm_info.bios.flags & APM_IDLE_SLOWS_CLOCK) != 0;
-	return clock_slowed;
-}
-
-/**
- *	apm_do_busy	-	inform the BIOS the CPU is busy
- *
- *	Request that the BIOS brings the CPU back to full performance.
- */
-
-static void apm_do_busy(void)
-{
-	u32 dummy;
-	int err;
-
-	if (clock_slowed || ALWAYS_CALL_BUSY) {
-		(void)apm_bios_call_simple(APM_FUNC_BUSY, 0, 0, &dummy, &err);
-		clock_slowed = 0;
-	}
-}
-
-/*
- * If no process has really been interested in
- * the CPU for some time, we want to call BIOS
- * power management - we probably want
- * to conserve power.
- */
-#define IDLE_CALC_LIMIT	(HZ * 100)
-#define IDLE_LEAKY_MAX	16
-
-static void (*original_pm_idle)(void) __read_mostly;
-
-/**
- * apm_cpu_idle		-	cpu idling for APM capable Linux
- *
- * This is the idling function the kernel executes when APM is available. It
- * tries to do BIOS powermanagement based on the average system idle time.
- * Furthermore it calls the system default idle routine.
- */
-
-static void apm_cpu_idle(void)
-{
-	static int use_apm_idle; /* = 0 */
-	static unsigned int last_jiffies; /* = 0 */
-	static unsigned int last_stime; /* = 0 */
-
-	int apm_idle_done = 0;
-	unsigned int jiffies_since_last_check = jiffies - last_jiffies;
-	unsigned int bucket;
-
-recalc:
-	if (jiffies_since_last_check > IDLE_CALC_LIMIT) {
-		use_apm_idle = 0;
-		last_jiffies = jiffies;
-		last_stime = current->stime;
-	} else if (jiffies_since_last_check > idle_period) {
-		unsigned int idle_percentage;
-
-		idle_percentage = current->stime - last_stime;
-		idle_percentage *= 100;
-		idle_percentage /= jiffies_since_last_check;
-		use_apm_idle = (idle_percentage > idle_threshold);
-		if (apm_info.forbid_idle)
-			use_apm_idle = 0;
-		last_jiffies = jiffies;
-		last_stime = current->stime;
-	}
-
-	bucket = IDLE_LEAKY_MAX;
-
-	while (!need_resched()) {
-		if (use_apm_idle) {
-			unsigned int t;
-
-			t = jiffies;
-			switch (apm_do_idle()) {
-			case 0:
-				apm_idle_done = 1;
-				if (t != jiffies) {
-					if (bucket) {
-						bucket = IDLE_LEAKY_MAX;
-						continue;
-					}
-				} else if (bucket) {
-					bucket--;
-					continue;
-				}
-				break;
-			case 1:
-				apm_idle_done = 1;
-				break;
-			default: /* BIOS refused */
-				break;
-			}
-		}
-		if (original_pm_idle)
-			original_pm_idle();
-		else
-			default_idle();
-		local_irq_disable();
-		jiffies_since_last_check = jiffies - last_jiffies;
-		if (jiffies_since_last_check > idle_period)
-			goto recalc;
-	}
-
-	if (apm_idle_done)
-		apm_do_busy();
-
-	local_irq_enable();
-}
-
-/**
  *	apm_power_off	-	ask the BIOS to power off
  *
  *	Handle the power off sequence. This is the one piece of code we
@@ -1881,12 +1700,6 @@ static int __init apm_setup(char *str)
 		if ((strncmp(str, "bounce-interval=", 16) == 0) ||
 		    (strncmp(str, "bounce_interval=", 16) == 0))
 			bounce_interval = simple_strtol(str + 16, NULL, 0);
-		if ((strncmp(str, "idle-threshold=", 15) == 0) ||
-		    (strncmp(str, "idle_threshold=", 15) == 0))
-			idle_threshold = simple_strtol(str + 15, NULL, 0);
-		if ((strncmp(str, "idle-period=", 12) == 0) ||
-		    (strncmp(str, "idle_period=", 12) == 0))
-			idle_period = simple_strtol(str + 12, NULL, 0);
 		invert = (strncmp(str, "no-", 3) == 0) ||
 			(strncmp(str, "no_", 3) == 0);
 		if (invert)
@@ -1898,7 +1711,6 @@ static int __init apm_setup(char *str)
 			power_off = !invert;
 		if (strncmp(str, "smp", 3) == 0) {
 			smp = !invert;
-			idle_threshold = 100;
 		}
 		if ((strncmp(str, "allow-ints", 10) == 0) ||
 		    (strncmp(str, "allow_ints", 10) == 0))
@@ -1999,17 +1811,6 @@ static int __init apm_is_horked_d850md(const struct dmi_system_id *d)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-/* Some APM bioses hang on APM idle calls */
-static int __init apm_likes_to_melt(const struct dmi_system_id *d)
-{
-	if (apm_info.forbid_idle == 0) {
-		apm_info.forbid_idle = 1;
-		printk(KERN_INFO "%s machine detected. "
-		       "Disabling APM idle calls.\n", d->ident);
-	}
-	return 0;
-}
-
 /*
  *  Check for clue free BIOS implementations who use
  *  the following QA technique
@@ -2150,16 +1951,6 @@ static struct dmi_system_id __initdata apm_dmi_table[] = {
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "Phoenix Technologies LTD"),
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "A11"), },
 	},
-	{	/* APM idle hangs */
-		apm_likes_to_melt, "Jabil AMD",
-		{	DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "American Megatrends Inc."),
-			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "0AASNP06"), },
-	},
-	{	/* APM idle hangs */
-		apm_likes_to_melt, "AMI Bios",
-		{	DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "American Megatrends Inc."),
-			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "0AASNP05"), },
-	},
 	{	/* Handle problems with APM on Sony Vaio PCG-N505X(DE) */
 		swab_apm_power_in_minutes, "Sony VAIO",
 		{	DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "Phoenix Technologies LTD"),
@@ -2390,14 +2181,6 @@ static int __init apm_init(void)
 	if (misc_register(&apm_device))
 		printk(KERN_WARNING "apm: Could not register misc device.\n");
 
-	if (HZ != 100)
-		idle_period = (idle_period * HZ) / 100;
-	if (idle_threshold < 100) {
-		original_pm_idle = pm_idle;
-		pm_idle  = apm_cpu_idle;
-		set_pm_idle = 1;
-	}
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -2405,15 +2188,6 @@ static void __exit apm_exit(void)
 {
 	int error;
 
-	if (set_pm_idle) {
-		pm_idle = original_pm_idle;
-		/*
-		 * We are about to unload the current idle thread pm callback
-		 * (pm_idle), Wait for all processors to update cached/local
-		 * copies of pm_idle before proceeding.
-		 */
-		cpu_idle_wait();
-	}
 	if (((apm_info.bios.flags & APM_BIOS_DISENGAGED) == 0)
 	    && (apm_info.connection_version > 0x0100)) {
 		error = apm_engage_power_management(APM_DEVICE_ALL, 0);
@@ -2451,12 +2225,6 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(broken_psr, "BIOS has a broken GetPowerStatus call");
 module_param(realmode_power_off, bool, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(realmode_power_off,
 		"Switch to real mode before powering off");
-module_param(idle_threshold, int, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(idle_threshold,
-	"System idle percentage above which to make APM BIOS idle calls");
-module_param(idle_period, int, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(idle_period,
-	"Period (in sec/100) over which to caculate the idle percentage");
 module_param(smp, bool, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(smp,
 	"Set this to enable APM use on an SMP platform. Use with caution on older systems");
-- 
1.7.4.2.406.gbe91

[PATCH] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle(), and its use of pm_idle

[Len Brown]

From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
is problematic.

After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
simply run default_idle() and HALT without calling
into the BIOS from their idle loop.

This deletes a much-maligned modular user of the (pm_idle)()
function pointer.

Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
---
Jiri,
If you can review, test, ack, that would be great.
I'll probably end up shipping this via the idle tree
because subsequent patches to delete pm_idle
will depend on it.

thanks,
-Len

 arch/x86/Kconfig         |   11 --
 arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c |  232 ----------------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 243 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index d5ed94d..681bb25 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1809,17 +1809,6 @@ config APM_DO_ENABLE
 	  T400CDT. This is off by default since most machines do fine without
 	  this feature.
 
-config APM_CPU_IDLE
-	bool "Make CPU Idle calls when idle"
-	---help---
-	  Enable calls to APM CPU Idle/CPU Busy inside the kernel's idle loop.
-	  On some machines, this can activate improved power savings, such as
-	  a slowed CPU clock rate, when the machine is idle. These idle calls
-	  are made after the idle loop has run for some length of time (e.g.,
-	  333 mS). On some machines, this will cause a hang at boot time or
-	  whenever the CPU becomes idle. (On machines with more than one CPU,
-	  this option does nothing.)
-
 config APM_DISPLAY_BLANK
 	bool "Enable console blanking using APM"
 	---help---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
index 0e4f24c..5bc37aa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
@@ -175,8 +175,6 @@
  *         Ignore first resume after we generate our own resume event
  *         after a suspend (Thomas Hood)
  *         Daemonize now gets rid of our controlling terminal (sfr).
- *         CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE now just affects the default value of
- *         idle_threshold (sfr).
  *         Change name of kernel apm daemon (as it no longer idles) (sfr).
  *   1.16ac: Fix up SMP support somewhat. You can now force SMP on and we
  *	   make _all_ APM calls on the CPU#0. Fix unsafe sign bug.
@@ -261,12 +259,6 @@ extern int (*console_blank_hook)(int);
  *	    [no-]smp			Use apm even on an SMP box
  *	    bounce[-_]interval=<n>	number of ticks to ignore suspend
  *	    				bounces
- *          idle[-_]threshold=<n>       System idle percentage above which to
- *                                      make APM BIOS idle calls. Set it to
- *                                      100 to disable.
- *          idle[-_]period=<n>          Period (in 1/100s of a second) over
- *                                      which the idle percentage is
- *                                      calculated.
  */
 
 /* KNOWN PROBLEM MACHINES:
@@ -356,26 +348,12 @@ struct apm_user {
 #define APM_BIOS_MAGIC		0x4101
 
 /*
- * idle percentage above which bios idle calls are done
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE
-#define DEFAULT_IDLE_THRESHOLD	95
-#else
-#define DEFAULT_IDLE_THRESHOLD	100
-#endif
-#define DEFAULT_IDLE_PERIOD	(100 / 3)
-
-/*
  * Local variables
  */
 static struct {
 	unsigned long	offset;
 	unsigned short	segment;
 } apm_bios_entry;
-static int clock_slowed;
-static int idle_threshold __read_mostly = DEFAULT_IDLE_THRESHOLD;
-static int idle_period __read_mostly = DEFAULT_IDLE_PERIOD;
-static int set_pm_idle;
 static int suspends_pending;
 static int standbys_pending;
 static int ignore_sys_suspend;
@@ -805,165 +783,6 @@ static int set_system_power_state(u_short state)
 }
 
 /**
- *	apm_do_idle	-	perform power saving
- *
- *	This function notifies the BIOS that the processor is (in the view
- *	of the OS) idle. It returns -1 in the event that the BIOS refuses
- *	to handle the idle request. On a success the function returns 1
- *	if the BIOS did clock slowing or 0 otherwise.
- */
-
-static int apm_do_idle(void)
-{
-	u32 eax;
-	u8 ret = 0;
-	int idled = 0;
-	int polling;
-	int err = 0;
-
-	polling = !!(current_thread_info()->status & TS_POLLING);
-	if (polling) {
-		current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
-		/*
-		 * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
-		 * test NEED_RESCHED:
-		 */
-		smp_mb();
-	}
-	if (!need_resched()) {
-		idled = 1;
-		ret = apm_bios_call_simple(APM_FUNC_IDLE, 0, 0, &eax, &err);
-	}
-	if (polling)
-		current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
-
-	if (!idled)
-		return 0;
-
-	if (ret) {
-		static unsigned long t;
-
-		/* This always fails on some SMP boards running UP kernels.
-		 * Only report the failure the first 5 times.
-		 */
-		if (++t < 5) {
-			printk(KERN_DEBUG "apm_do_idle failed (%d)\n", err);
-			t = jiffies;
-		}
-		return -1;
-	}
-	clock_slowed = (apm_info.bios.flags & APM_IDLE_SLOWS_CLOCK) != 0;
-	return clock_slowed;
-}
-
-/**
- *	apm_do_busy	-	inform the BIOS the CPU is busy
- *
- *	Request that the BIOS brings the CPU back to full performance.
- */
-
-static void apm_do_busy(void)
-{
-	u32 dummy;
-	int err;
-
-	if (clock_slowed || ALWAYS_CALL_BUSY) {
-		(void)apm_bios_call_simple(APM_FUNC_BUSY, 0, 0, &dummy, &err);
-		clock_slowed = 0;
-	}
-}
-
-/*
- * If no process has really been interested in
- * the CPU for some time, we want to call BIOS
- * power management - we probably want
- * to conserve power.
- */
-#define IDLE_CALC_LIMIT	(HZ * 100)
-#define IDLE_LEAKY_MAX	16
-
-static void (*original_pm_idle)(void) __read_mostly;
-
-/**
- * apm_cpu_idle		-	cpu idling for APM capable Linux
- *
- * This is the idling function the kernel executes when APM is available. It
- * tries to do BIOS powermanagement based on the average system idle time.
- * Furthermore it calls the system default idle routine.
- */
-
-static void apm_cpu_idle(void)
-{
-	static int use_apm_idle; /* = 0 */
-	static unsigned int last_jiffies; /* = 0 */
-	static unsigned int last_stime; /* = 0 */
-
-	int apm_idle_done = 0;
-	unsigned int jiffies_since_last_check = jiffies - last_jiffies;
-	unsigned int bucket;
-
-recalc:
-	if (jiffies_since_last_check > IDLE_CALC_LIMIT) {
-		use_apm_idle = 0;
-		last_jiffies = jiffies;
-		last_stime = current->stime;
-	} else if (jiffies_since_last_check > idle_period) {
-		unsigned int idle_percentage;
-
-		idle_percentage = current->stime - last_stime;
-		idle_percentage *= 100;
-		idle_percentage /= jiffies_since_last_check;
-		use_apm_idle = (idle_percentage > idle_threshold);
-		if (apm_info.forbid_idle)
-			use_apm_idle = 0;
-		last_jiffies = jiffies;
-		last_stime = current->stime;
-	}
-
-	bucket = IDLE_LEAKY_MAX;
-
-	while (!need_resched()) {
-		if (use_apm_idle) {
-			unsigned int t;
-
-			t = jiffies;
-			switch (apm_do_idle()) {
-			case 0:
-				apm_idle_done = 1;
-				if (t != jiffies) {
-					if (bucket) {
-						bucket = IDLE_LEAKY_MAX;
-						continue;
-					}
-				} else if (bucket) {
-					bucket--;
-					continue;
-				}
-				break;
-			case 1:
-				apm_idle_done = 1;
-				break;
-			default: /* BIOS refused */
-				break;
-			}
-		}
-		if (original_pm_idle)
-			original_pm_idle();
-		else
-			default_idle();
-		local_irq_disable();
-		jiffies_since_last_check = jiffies - last_jiffies;
-		if (jiffies_since_last_check > idle_period)
-			goto recalc;
-	}
-
-	if (apm_idle_done)
-		apm_do_busy();
-
-	local_irq_enable();
-}
-
-/**
  *	apm_power_off	-	ask the BIOS to power off
  *
  *	Handle the power off sequence. This is the one piece of code we
@@ -1881,12 +1700,6 @@ static int __init apm_setup(char *str)
 		if ((strncmp(str, "bounce-interval=", 16) == 0) ||
 		    (strncmp(str, "bounce_interval=", 16) == 0))
 			bounce_interval = simple_strtol(str + 16, NULL, 0);
-		if ((strncmp(str, "idle-threshold=", 15) == 0) ||
-		    (strncmp(str, "idle_threshold=", 15) == 0))
-			idle_threshold = simple_strtol(str + 15, NULL, 0);
-		if ((strncmp(str, "idle-period=", 12) == 0) ||
-		    (strncmp(str, "idle_period=", 12) == 0))
-			idle_period = simple_strtol(str + 12, NULL, 0);
 		invert = (strncmp(str, "no-", 3) == 0) ||
 			(strncmp(str, "no_", 3) == 0);
 		if (invert)
@@ -1898,7 +1711,6 @@ static int __init apm_setup(char *str)
 			power_off = !invert;
 		if (strncmp(str, "smp", 3) == 0) {
 			smp = !invert;
-			idle_threshold = 100;
 		}
 		if ((strncmp(str, "allow-ints", 10) == 0) ||
 		    (strncmp(str, "allow_ints", 10) == 0))
@@ -1999,17 +1811,6 @@ static int __init apm_is_horked_d850md(const struct dmi_system_id *d)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-/* Some APM bioses hang on APM idle calls */
-static int __init apm_likes_to_melt(const struct dmi_system_id *d)
-{
-	if (apm_info.forbid_idle == 0) {
-		apm_info.forbid_idle = 1;
-		printk(KERN_INFO "%s machine detected. "
-		       "Disabling APM idle calls.\n", d->ident);
-	}
-	return 0;
-}
-
 /*
  *  Check for clue free BIOS implementations who use
  *  the following QA technique
@@ -2150,16 +1951,6 @@ static struct dmi_system_id __initdata apm_dmi_table[] = {
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "Phoenix Technologies LTD"),
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "A11"), },
 	},
-	{	/* APM idle hangs */
-		apm_likes_to_melt, "Jabil AMD",
-		{	DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "American Megatrends Inc."),
-			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "0AASNP06"), },
-	},
-	{	/* APM idle hangs */
-		apm_likes_to_melt, "AMI Bios",
-		{	DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "American Megatrends Inc."),
-			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "0AASNP05"), },
-	},
 	{	/* Handle problems with APM on Sony Vaio PCG-N505X(DE) */
 		swab_apm_power_in_minutes, "Sony VAIO",
 		{	DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "Phoenix Technologies LTD"),
@@ -2390,14 +2181,6 @@ static int __init apm_init(void)
 	if (misc_register(&apm_device))
 		printk(KERN_WARNING "apm: Could not register misc device.\n");
 
-	if (HZ != 100)
-		idle_period = (idle_period * HZ) / 100;
-	if (idle_threshold < 100) {
-		original_pm_idle = pm_idle;
-		pm_idle  = apm_cpu_idle;
-		set_pm_idle = 1;
-	}
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -2405,15 +2188,6 @@ static void __exit apm_exit(void)
 {
 	int error;
 
-	if (set_pm_idle) {
-		pm_idle = original_pm_idle;
-		/*
-		 * We are about to unload the current idle thread pm callback
-		 * (pm_idle), Wait for all processors to update cached/local
-		 * copies of pm_idle before proceeding.
-		 */
-		cpu_idle_wait();
-	}
 	if (((apm_info.bios.flags & APM_BIOS_DISENGAGED) == 0)
 	    && (apm_info.connection_version > 0x0100)) {
 		error = apm_engage_power_management(APM_DEVICE_ALL, 0);
@@ -2451,12 +2225,6 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(broken_psr, "BIOS has a broken GetPowerStatus call");
 module_param(realmode_power_off, bool, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(realmode_power_off,
 		"Switch to real mode before powering off");
-module_param(idle_threshold, int, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(idle_threshold,
-	"System idle percentage above which to make APM BIOS idle calls");
-module_param(idle_period, int, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(idle_period,
-	"Period (in sec/100) over which to caculate the idle percentage");
 module_param(smp, bool, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(smp,
 	"Set this to enable APM use on an SMP platform. Use with caution on older systems");
-- 
1.7.4.2.406.gbe91

Re: [PATCH] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle(), and its use of pm_idle

[Ingo Molnar]

* Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> 
> There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
> to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
> Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
> but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
> for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
> is problematic.
> 
> After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
> simply run default_idle() and HALT without calling
> into the BIOS from their idle loop.
> 
> This deletes a much-maligned modular user of the (pm_idle)()
> function pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

Ok, this should have far less negative impact on old hardware.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle(), and its use of pm_idle

[Ingo Molnar]

* Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> 
> There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
> to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
> Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
> but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
> for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
> is problematic.
> 
> After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
> simply run default_idle() and HALT without calling
> into the BIOS from their idle loop.
> 
> This deletes a much-maligned modular user of the (pm_idle)()
> function pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

Ok, this should have far less negative impact on old hardware.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle(), and its use of pm_idle

[Jiri Kosina]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Len Brown wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> 
> There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
> to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
> Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
> but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
> for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
> is problematic.
> 
> After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
> simply run default_idle() and HALT without calling
> into the BIOS from their idle loop.
> 
> This deletes a much-maligned modular user of the (pm_idle)()
> function pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> ---
> Jiri,
> If you can review, test, ack, that would be great.
> I'll probably end up shipping this via the idle tree
> because subsequent patches to delete pm_idle
> will depend on it.

Looks fine, works here.

	Acked-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>

Thanks Len.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: [PATCH] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle(), and its use of pm_idle

[Jiri Kosina]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Len Brown wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> 
> There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
> to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
> Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
> but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
> for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
> is problematic.
> 
> After this patch, systems running in APM mode will
> simply run default_idle() and HALT without calling
> into the BIOS from their idle loop.
> 
> This deletes a much-maligned modular user of the (pm_idle)()
> function pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> ---
> Jiri,
> If you can review, test, ack, that would be great.
> I'll probably end up shipping this via the idle tree
> because subsequent patches to delete pm_idle
> will depend on it.

Looks fine, works here.

	Acked-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>

Thanks Len.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.