On Thursday 31 August 2006 20:30, Jim Gettys wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 17:13 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 August 2006 13:43, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > That would be helpful. For the One Laptop Per Child project (or whatever > > > it's called today), it would be advantageous to run without acpi. > > > > Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for running without acpi? > > It costs a lot to diverge from the mainstream in areas like that, > > so there must be a big payoff. But maybe if OLPC depends on acpi > > being smarter about power or code size or whatever, those improvements > > could be made and everybody would benefit. > > Good question; I see Matthew beat me to part of the explanation, but > here is more detail: I recommended that the OLPC guys not use ACPI. I do not think it would benefit their system. Although it is an i386 instruction set, their system is more like an embedded device than like a traditional laptop. The Geode doesn't suport any C-states -- so ACPI wouldn't help them there anyway. As Jim wrote, OLPC plans to suspend-to-ram from idle, and to keep video running, so ACPI wouldn't help them on that either. Re: optimizing suspend/resume speed I expect suspend/resume speed has more to do with devices than with ACPI. But frankly, with gaping functionality holes in Linux suspend/resume support such as IDE and SATA, I think that optimizing for suspend/resume speed on a mainstream laptop is somewhat "forward looking". -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
