On Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:42, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
> >> The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the "dmesg" the file is attached:
> >>
> >> dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 > apm: overridden by ACPI.
> >>
> >> dmesg, APM on, has no line > apm: overridden by ACPI.
> >
> > Ok, this is the real reason.
> >
> > The APM code does:
> >
> > if (PM_IS_ACTIVE()) {
> > printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: overridden by ACPI.\n");
> > apm_info.disabled = 1;
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > and in previous kernels that would notice that you have ACPI enabled, and
> > APM gets shut out, and you never see your buggy APM BIOS.
> >
> > In 2.6.23, this apparently doesn't happen for some reason.
> >
> > And I think I see the problem: it's a config change. You don't have
> > PM_LEGACY enabled. Your config file diff shows:
> >
> > -CONFIG_PM_LEGACY=y
> > +# CONFIG_PM_LEGACY is not set
> >
> > I suspect we should make CONFIG_APM either depend on, or select,
> > PM_LEGACY. But as far as I can see, nothing has actually changed in this
> > area in the kernel, and this bug has been there before - just your config
> > change made it appear.
> >
> > Rafael? Stephen? Opinions? I'd think that making APM depend on
> > CONFIG_PM_LEGACY is the right thing to do these days..
>
> Speaking as the author of
>
> [PATCH] move pm_register/etc. to CONFIG_PM_LEGACY, pm_legacy.h
>
> I agree. arch/i386/kernel/apm.c clearly requires
> include/linux/pm_legacy.h and the legacy PM API.
>
> I would vote for a dependency rather than select, but don't have any
> strong feelings on the matter...
I agree and yes, I'd vote for a dependency too.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
