On Wed 2008-09-17 07:45:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 15 of September 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > ACPI specificiation tells us that x_firmware_waking_vector is > > preffered, and maybe it works better than firmware_waking_vector on > > some machines. > > > > Unfortunately, it does not seem to work on thinkpad x60... but I am > > not sure if I'm not doing something wrong. > > > > Testing/ideas would be welcome. > > Well, the spec says that if x_firmware_waking_vector is non-zero, the BIOS is > supposed to call your wake-up code in Protected Mode ... That's why I'm passing physical address of 32-bit code... or am I supposed to pass 48-bit selector:offset pair? But what GDT will BIOS use in that case? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
