Re: Re: _CST implementation

[Thomas Renninger <trenn-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>]

Bruno Ducrot wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 04:11:45PM -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
>>Stefan Seyfried wrote:
>>>On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:45:18PM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>IOW, from spec we should not invalidate, but from "common practice" by
>>>>bios writters, we should invalidate.
>>>
>>>What about a "spec_compliant_but_beware_of_stupid_bios_writers" module
>>>parameter? ;-)
>>I fear that would be set to nonzero on every system...
>>
> 
> That's the case already.  This is the boot parameter
> acpi=strict

I do not think it is a good idea to make this depend on acpi=strict.

Normally !acpi_strict enables features for some broken BIOS.
In this case !acpi_strict disables them.

There still is max_cstates if something goes terribly wrong.
I never saw such a machine, are there many of them out there?

Janosch: Did you get the 1001 latency state to work?


    Thomas


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click