Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >>> [appropriate CCs added] >>> >>> On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >>> >>>> just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents >>>> tossing the legacy PM stuff. at the moment, the menuconfig entry for >>>> PM_LEGACY lists it as "DEPRECATED", while the help screen calls it >>>> "obsolete." that's a good sign that it's getting close to the time >>>> for it to go, and the removal is fairly straightforward, but there's >>>> no mention of its removal in the feature removal schedule file. >>>> >>> It's been like this for a long long time. I think you're right that it can >>> be >>> dropped, but I don't know the details (eg. why it hasn't been dropped yet). >>> >>> >> One reason was that there are (were?) a number of machines which only powered >> down properly using apm. It was discussed as part of shutting down after power >> failure when your UPS is running out of power. >> > > um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM? two different issues, > no? > Since the patches are going into apm.c and apm was used for suspend and poweroff before ACPI was a feature of the hardware, I assume there's a relationship. As of 2.6.9 ACPI still couldn't power down one of my old boxes, it hasn't been updated since that time, so I can't say what later kernels will do. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
