From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add C3 support to P4-M / ICH-M chipsets Date: 20 May 2004 23:34:11 -0400 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1085110450.12353.553.camel@dhcppc4> References: <20040518211431.GA17545@hell.org.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040518211431.GA17545-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Karol Kozimor Cc: ACPI Developers List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 17:14, Karol Kozimor wrote: > Now, for the tricky part: > > 1) Is it actually worth it? Do the power savings justify the effort? Are > there many people who might benefit from this patch? > 2) Are there any chances on merging such chipset-specific quirks? > Obviously, not in the current form, but possibly as a separate object > surrounded by pci_find_subsys() or anything appropriate? Karol, Good hunting ont he chip set spect etc. But lets wait till after we have a _CST based implementation in place and then see if the workarounds are still necessary then. thanks, -Len ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click