On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable. resumably even if the old > > laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have > > long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big > > issue. > > Agreed. Especially since I'm not at all convinced that APM CPU idling > ever really worked in the first place. > > And as you say, it's not a catastrophic failure even if we were to > remove it, and even if it were to have mattered on those old laptops > years ago. I think we can happily say "not worth worrying about" when > it comes to APM_CPU_IDLE. > > And shutdown, suspend and screensaver should all be much easier to > continue to support - they shouldn't have any serious infrastructure > issues. APM_CPU_IDLE removal doesn't really sound as a disaster, yes. I doubt anyone would even notice. So deprecating it altogether with planned Len's code reshuffling seems like reasonable aproach to me. _SUSPEND, poweroff and probably _STANDBY are the parts I would care much more about. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
