From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752983Ab2G1RsS (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:48:18 -0400 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:51452 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752886Ab2G1RsR (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:48:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:11:48 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Len Brown Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle() Message-ID: <20120728111148.39ff7230@ultron> In-Reply-To: References: <1343428975-3897-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:42:53 -0400 Len Brown wrote: > From: Len Brown > > The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS > is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit > on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break. You mean "doesn't fit my current plan" I think. I see almost no bugzilla APM reports. It's been solid for years. It makes a big difference on older systems as it drops the clock. If we are going to drop this we should probaly also drop APM support entirely and 386/486 support. If not IMHO it should stay. Various embedded platforms are still using ancient hardware setups. This is a small stable piece of code that has required no maintainance in years Furthermore we have a feature removal process. Mark it down to be removed in July 2013 if there are no objections, and then wait as per proper process. NAK Alan