On Thu 2010-05-27 20:59:07, Len Brown wrote: > > > ... we think we can do better than ACPI. > > > Why exactly? Is there any info missing in the ACPI tables? > > Or is this just to be more independent from OEMs? > > ACPI has a few fundmental flaws here. One is that it reports > exit latency instead of break-even power duration. > The other is that it requires a BIOS writer to > get the tables right. > > Both of these are fatal flaws. Intel is co-author of ACPI spec, right? So what about fixing those? > > > Indeed, on my (production level commerically available) Nehalem desktop > > > the ACPI tables are broken and an ACPI OS idles at 100W. With this > > > driver the box idles at 85W. > > > What exactly was broken there? > > Dell's BIOS developer botched a bug fix immediately before the system > went to market and disabled support for all ACPI C-states except C1. > After several month of shipping systems, they still were unable > to ship them with a fixed BIOS. I always thought that cpu vendors have ways to work with bios manufacturers... -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
