On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 08:25 +0800, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> Also, as was pointed out, pre-Vista versions of Windows follow ACPI
> 1.0
> >> and Vista follows 3.0, so 2.0 doesn't really matter since BIOS
> people
> >> won't test against it. 1.0 specifies that _PTS is
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
>
> I doubt they would prefer the later ordering in any way that matters, if the
> Windows version they were designed for uses the earlier ordering.
Well, I wouldn't say it's abotu "preferring" one over the other. It's very
possible that the BIOS writ
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Also, as was pointed out, pre-Vista versions of Windows follow ACPI 1.0
and Vista follows 3.0, so 2.0 doesn't really matter since BIOS people
won't test against it. 1.0 specifies that _PTS is to be called before
suspending devices and 3.0 says that the AML must not depe
On Thursday, 27 of December 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
> >>> 2.0 and later want
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling
_PTS, ACPI 1.0x wa
Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
I don't know.
Windows was compliant only with 1.x spec until Vista.
With Vista claims are 3.x compliance.
In other words, the 1.x spec is the only thing that matters, at least in
the short term (*noone* is giving up XP compatibility at this point.)
-h
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling
_PTS, ACPI
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
> > 2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling
> > _PTS, ACPI 1.0x wants us t
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
> 2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling
> _PTS, ACPI 1.0x wants us to do that after calling _PTS. Since we're following
> the 2.0 and l
9 matches
Mail list logo
