RE: ACPI _and_ APM ??

RE: ACPI _and_ APM ??

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: Breathnach, Proinnsias (Dublin) 
> Just curious if this should / shouldn't work ...
> 
> I've a Sony Vaio FX401 - AMD 800 512MB laptop, which works great with
> almost any given version of the ACPI patches... unfortunately with the
> way I've got the machine configured and the amount of RAM 
> it's faster to
> shutdown -h and reboot than to use SWSUSP (sorry Pavel !)
> 
> I have noticed that the APM suspend-to-ram works nicely (well 
> apart from
> the VTs blanking, but that's the FB code ..) and even returns cleanly
> ... and I was wondering if there's any real reason one 
> couldn't use both
> ACPI for config etc and APM for sleeping ?
> 
> Or am I losing the plot altogether ?

They're not designed to coexist. Therefore, most likely, they won't. You
can try disabling the mutual exclusivity checks in the kernel and see
what happens, but this isn't that we can advocate for widespread use.

Regards -- Andy


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

RE: ACPI _and_ APM ??

[Breathnach, Proinnsias (Dublin)]

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 15:56, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > 
> > Or am I losing the plot altogether ?
> 
> They're not designed to coexist. Therefore, most likely, they won't. You
> can try disabling the mutual exclusivity checks in the kernel and see
> what happens, but this isn't that we can advocate for widespread use.
> 
> Regards -- Andy

Thanks Andy,
	I sorta figured that'd be the answer ... thought I'd check before I
went barking up the wrong tree ... time to learn more internals and go
fixing S3 then :)

Thanks guys for all the hard work to date !

P




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: ACPI _and_ APM ??

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > Or am I losing the plot altogether ?
> > 
> > They're not designed to coexist. Therefore, most likely, they won't. You
> > can try disabling the mutual exclusivity checks in the kernel and see
> > what happens, but this isn't that we can advocate for widespread use.
> > 
> > Regards -- Andy
> 
> Thanks Andy,
> 	I sorta figured that'd be the answer ... thought I'd check before I
> went barking up the wrong tree ... time to learn more internals and go
> fixing S3 then :)

:-) Yep. Or you might help Nigel getting swsusp faster ;-). S3 is
likely better idea, through.
									Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger 
for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and 
disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX 
and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com

Re: ACPI _and_ APM ??

[Ducrot Bruno]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:56:07AM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > From: Breathnach, Proinnsias (Dublin) 
> > Just curious if this should / shouldn't work ...
> > 
> > I've a Sony Vaio FX401 - AMD 800 512MB laptop, which works great with
> > almost any given version of the ACPI patches... unfortunately with the
> > way I've got the machine configured and the amount of RAM 
> > it's faster to
> > shutdown -h and reboot than to use SWSUSP (sorry Pavel !)
> > 
> > I have noticed that the APM suspend-to-ram works nicely (well 
> > apart from
> > the VTs blanking, but that's the FB code ..) and even returns cleanly
> > ... and I was wondering if there's any real reason one 
> > couldn't use both
> > ACPI for config etc and APM for sleeping ?
> > 
> > Or am I losing the plot altogether ?
> 
> They're not designed to coexist. Therefore, most likely, they won't. You
> can try disabling the mutual exclusivity checks in the kernel and see
> what happens, but this isn't that we can advocate for widespread use.
> 

I doubt this will be a good idea.  At least, some events will be configured by
the BIOS in order to generate DMI# under APM and SCI under ACPI.

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

ACPI _and_ APM ??

[Breathnach, Proinnsias (Dublin)]

Just curious if this should / shouldn't work ...

I've a Sony Vaio FX401 - AMD 800 512MB laptop, which works great with
almost any given version of the ACPI patches... unfortunately with the
way I've got the machine configured and the amount of RAM it's faster to
shutdown -h and reboot than to use SWSUSP (sorry Pavel !)

I have noticed that the APM suspend-to-ram works nicely (well apart from
the VTs blanking, but that's the FB code ..) and even returns cleanly
... and I was wondering if there's any real reason one couldn't use both
ACPI for config etc and APM for sleeping ?

Or am I losing the plot altogether ?

P




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf