> > There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature > > to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable. > > Certainly it was known to fail on some machines, > > And it was known to work on lots - a point that despite repeated > reminding you seem keen to ignore. > > The fundamental problem I have with this patch set is this > > You've provided no architectural overall justification for all this > effort. What is the big picture around your crusade here ? What is the > grand plan ? This patch series was posted in reply to a table of contents https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/2/8 "By the end of this series, pm_idle is removed as a public x86 idle-loop registration mechanism. A few other things are cleaned up in the process." I labeled it "idle cleanup - v3" -- I'm sorry if it went un-noticed because I neglected to put the [PATCH 0/18] on it. Trinabh also replied to you, pointing one of the previous LKML discussions about the mis-use of pm_idle. > > but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped > > for a decade and so finding machines to test the code > > is problematic. > > So don't test it - if it's wrong someone will let you know, believe me 8) > > And 2.6.40 is far too soon - it takes about a year for stuff to rattle > through to leading edge distro users in bulk If you insist. We'll create a new APM cpuidle driver in Linux (Trinabh prototyped one), and at the same time, schedule it for removal in a year. Personally, I think it is make-work, and in real-life it is more likely to do more harm than removing apm_idle, but I don't want to stand in the way of process. thanks, -Len _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
