From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: [PATHC] Relaxed syntax for the processor PBLK length Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:29:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20050131152931.GC1145@poupinou.org> References: <41FD3E02.8010701@tremplin-utc.net> <20050131145836.GA1145@poupinou.org> <41FE4ABF.9040100@tremplin-utc.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41FE4ABF.9040100-VkQ1JFuSMpfAbQlEx87xDw@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Eric Piel , Nate Lawson Cc: len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:11:59PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote: > Why? Actually this patch is especially designed to allow C3 state to be > used on my computer. This works for more than 6 months without any > appearent problem, is there anything I'm not aware of? I thought some BIOS devellopers wanted to use a size for the pblk of 5 just to not allow C3 (which correspond to the sixth io register). I'm not alone to think this. Nate: FreeBSD allow only C2 in this case. What do you think about this report? Do you have an example of some kind of malfunction when enabling C3? -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl