Walt Mankowski wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 03:06:56PM -0500, Derek Broughton wrote:
Except that, afaik, BIOS suspend-to-disk simply isn't a possibility if
you have an ACPI bios
That's not completely true. I have a Compaq Presario 1700, ACPI only.
I dual-boot between Win 98 and Debian pota
Walt Mankowski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 03:06:56PM -0500, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>>Except that, afaik, BIOS suspend-to-disk simply isn't a possibility if
>>you have an ACPI bios
>
> That's not completely true. I have a Compaq Presario 1700, ACPI only.
> I dual-boot between Win 98 and
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 03:06:56PM -0500, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Except that, afaik, BIOS suspend-to-disk simply isn't a possibility if
> you have an ACPI bios
That's not completely true. I have a Compaq Presario 1700, ACPI only.
I dual-boot between Win 98 and Debian potato. I'm still running
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 03:06:56PM -0500, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Except that, afaik, BIOS suspend-to-disk simply isn't a possibility if
> you have an ACPI bios
That's not completely true. I have a Compaq Presario 1700, ACPI only.
I dual-boot between Win 98 and Debian potato. I'm still runnin
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Goran Ristic wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
[...]
> > I could need this for the i81k, too. ;) I'd like to know, what in
> > causal EJT is? - I can identifier LID, PWR DCK and BAY.
>
> Thinking about this, it occurs that the
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Goran Ristic wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
[...]
> > I could need this for the i81k, too. ;) I'd like to know, what in
> > causal EJT is? - I can identifier LID, PWR DCK and BAY.
>
> Thinking about this, it occurs that th
Unfortunately i'm still not yet subscribed to the list... i hope the
subscription will be repaired soon... Please CC: me on replies.
For ACPI: i recommend running current ACPI patches, not the version in
the mainstream kernel. get them from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/acpi/
These newer versio
Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:45:06 +0100:
Are there any reasons to prefer software suspend to disk above
bios-controlled, or backwards?
The advantage of using bios-suspend is that it usually works.. The
advantage of using software-suspend is that it only
Unfortunately i'm still not yet subscribed to the list... i hope the
subscription will be repaired soon... Please CC: me on replies.
For ACPI: i recommend running current ACPI patches, not the version in
the mainstream kernel. get them from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/acpi/
These newer versi
Goran Ristic wrote:
> Hi Derek!
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> |> I don't think so. He's got an 8000, not an 8100, and I believe it's
> |> APM. You definitely can't do half the ACPI stuff on a 2500 you
can do
> |> on an 8100, because our BIOS is buggy - but if I ever manag
Alan Shutko wrote:
Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully supported. If you're running the
latest ACPI patches with swsusp you can do suspend-to-disk, but over
on ACPI-devel they're still arguing about how much of the swsusp stuff
to incorporate.
Cool
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:45:06 +0100:
> Are there any reasons to prefer software suspend to disk above
> bios-controlled, or backwards?
>
The advantage of using bios-suspend is that it usually works.. The
advantage of using software-suspend is that it only saves to disk what's
nece
Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:45:06 +0100:
>
>> Are there any reasons to prefer software suspend to disk above
>> bios-controlled, or backwards?
>>
>>
> The advantage of using bios-suspend is that it usually works.. The
> advantage of using software-suspend
Goran Ristic wrote:
> Hi Derek!
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> |> I don't think so. He's got an 8000, not an 8100, and I believe it's
> |> APM. You definitely can't do half the ACPI stuff on a 2500 you
can do
> |> on an 8100, because our BIOS is buggy - but if I ever
Alan Shutko wrote:
> Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully supported. If you're running the
>>latest ACPI patches with swsusp you can do suspend-to-disk, but over
>>on ACPI-devel they're still arguing about how much of the swsusp stuff
>>to incorpor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:45:06 +0100:
> Are there any reasons to prefer software suspend to disk above
> bios-controlled, or backwards?
>
The advantage of using bios-suspend is that it usually works.. The
advantage of using software-suspend is that it only saves to disk what's
nec
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 06:24:31PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
>> >> > Derek Broughton
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 06:24:31PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> >> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Perhaps a bit
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
>> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Perhaps a bit irellevant, but if you really want suspend to disk and
> your kernel/machine
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 06:24:31PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
>> >> > Derek Broughto
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perhaps a bit irellevant, but if you really want suspend to disk and your
kernel/machine combination doesn't support it, there is always
softwar
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 06:24:31PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> >> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Perhaps a bit
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
>> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Perhaps a bit irellevant, but if you really want suspend to disk and
> your kernel/machin
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perhaps a bit irellevant, but if you really want suspend to disk and your
kernel/machine combination doesn't support it, there is always
softwa
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully supported. If you're running the
>> latest ACPI patches with swsusp you can do suspend-to-disk, but over
>> on ACPI-devel they're still arguing about how much of the swsusp
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully supported. If you're running the
>> latest ACPI patches with swsusp you can do suspend-to-disk, but over
>> on ACPI-devel they're still arguing about how much of the swsusp
Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully supported. If you're running the
> latest ACPI patches with swsusp you can do suspend-to-disk, but over
> on ACPI-devel they're still arguing about how much of the swsusp stuff
> to incorporate.
Cool! Is that in the
Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully supported. If you're running the
> latest ACPI patches with swsusp you can do suspend-to-disk, but over
> on ACPI-devel they're still arguing about how much of the swsusp stuff
> to incorporate.
Cool! Is that in th
Hi Derek!
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
|> I don't think so. He's got an 8000, not an 8100, and I believe it's
|> APM. You definitely can't do half the ACPI stuff on a 2500 you can do
|> on an 8100, because our BIOS is buggy - but if I ever manage to get a
|> working ASL compil
Hi Derek!
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
|> I don't think so. He's got an 8000, not an 8100, and I believe it's
|> APM. You definitely can't do half the ACPI stuff on a 2500 you can do
|> on an 8100, because our BIOS is buggy - but if I ever manage to get a
|> working ASL compi
Alan Shutko wrote:
Goran Ristic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I wasn't aware that ACPI suspend had been implemented on Linux yet.
Almost. Level 1 is easy and fully
Alan Shutko wrote:
> Goran Ristic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
>>lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
>>
>
> I wasn't aware that ACPI suspend had been implemented on Linux yet.
Almost. Level 1 is ea
Goran Ristic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
> lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I wasn't aware that ACPI suspend had been implemented on Linux yet.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of fl
Baptiste Malguy wrote:
I have an 8000 but I set it up in the BIOS.
You can set up the ACPI in the BIOS ? Anyone knows if
there is a way to do such a thing on the 2500 ? I saw
nothing in the BIOS for this one :( (A10)
I think my question is stupid but who knows ...
I don't think so. He's got
Goran Ristic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
> lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I wasn't aware that ACPI suspend had been implemented on Linux yet.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of f
> I have an 8000 but I set it up in the BIOS.
You can set up the ACPI in the BIOS ? Anyone knows if
there is a way to do such a thing on the 2500 ? I saw
nothing in the BIOS for this one :( (A10)
I think my question is stupid but who knows ...
--
Baptiste Malguy | Mel: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
> I have an 8000 but I set it up in the BIOS.
You can set up the ACPI in the BIOS ? Anyone knows if
there is a way to do such a thing on the 2500 ? I saw
nothing in the BIOS for this one :( (A10)
I think my question is stupid but who knows ...
--
Baptiste Malguy | Mel: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 08:10, Goran Ristic wrote:
> Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
> lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I have an 8000 but I set it up in the BIOS.
YMMV.
>
> I'm currently using 2.4.17 with patches from sourceforge.net.
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 08:10, Goran Ristic wrote:
> Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
> lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I have an 8000 but I set it up in the BIOS.
YMMV.
>
> I'm currently using 2.4.17 with patches from sourceforge.net
Hi.
Curious I was. So I decided to test ACPI on my Inspiron 81k. Well, the
stuff works better, than I thought. ;)
Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I'm currently using 2.4.17 with patches from sourceforge.
Hi.
Curious I was. So I decided to test ACPI on my Inspiron 81k. Well, the
stuff works better, than I thought. ;)
Now I'd like to know how to tell the system to suspend, when closing the
lid? Unfortunately there is no command like 'apm -s'.
I'm currently using 2.4.17 with patches from sourceforge
41 matches
Mail list logo
