From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Idle Processor PM Improvements Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:13:20 -0600 Message-ID: <200608311713.21618.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <20060830194317.GA9116@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from atlrel9.hp.com ([156.153.255.214]:34238 "EHLO atlrel9.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750864AbWHaXMt (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:12:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060830194317.GA9116@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Adam Belay , "Brown, Len" , ACPI ML , Linux Kernel ML , Dominik Brodowski , Arjan van de Ven , devel@laptop.org On Wednesday 30 August 2006 13:43, Matthew Garrett wrote: > That would be helpful. For the One Laptop Per Child project (or whatever > it's called today), it would be advantageous to run without acpi. Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for running without acpi? It costs a lot to diverge from the mainstream in areas like that, so there must be a big payoff. But maybe if OLPC depends on acpi being smarter about power or code size or whatever, those improvements could be made and everybody would benefit.