From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: create "processor.bm_check_disable" boot param Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:24:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87k4oiiu3x.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <20100427124703.GA16706@jgarrett.org> <20100430174447.GA14889@srcf.ucam.org> <20100525124325.GC7876@srcf.ucam.org> <20100525185507.GA15997@srcf.ucam.org> <20100722074750.GA22520@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:44314 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753591Ab0GZHYK (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:24:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Len Brown's message of "Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:40:02 -0400 (EDT)") Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Matthew Garrett , "Yu, Luming" , Philip Langdale , Jeff Garrett , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "venki@google.com" Len Brown writes: > > Note also that an alternative for newer systems > is to use the intel_idle driver, which always > ignores BM_STS, relying Linux device drivers > to register constraints explicitly via PM_QOS. > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15886 Thanks. I don't fully understand why the check for this option is in a different place than the register check in the earlier patch? This needs to be also documented in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt Other than that it looks good. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.