On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:35:34 + (GMT), Alan Cox wrote:
>> Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What=
>> am I
>> missing?
>
>If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going
>into the bios suspend one presumes.
Maybe, maybe not.
Sho
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> > Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I
> > missing?
>
> apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for
> two different registers.
>
OK, my bad... By replacing the call I made with this:
> Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What=
> am I
> missing?
If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going
into the bios suspend one presumes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body o
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:19:07AM +0100, Francis Galiegue wrote:
> Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I
> missing?
apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for
two different registers.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
> As attachment. Don't ask me why it works. Rather, if you see why it works, I'd
> like to know why :)
Why are you breaking kapm-idled. It is supposed to take all that cpu time. You
just broke all the power saving
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the b
5 matches
Mail list logo
