Hi! > > So how does your reasoning not apply to those drivers? There's several which > > are older than APM support. > > > > We had this really big battle about x86/Voyager two years ago, which x86 > > subarchitecture literally had just a single user left, and the code was more > > intrusive than APM. Even there after much flaming the eventual consensus was > > that we'd accept it back if it was done cleanly, as part of the new-style > > x86_platform code. > > > > Given that APM fits into the current PM frameworks there's no such problem here > > that i can see. > > Well, it kind of does but not really. :-) > > The main problem with APM is that nobody really works on it and I'm not sure > if there are any active users. At least no one reports any problems with it, > which is kind of surprising, given the number of chages we've made in the PM > core for the last couple of years. So quite likely it's just become > non-functional over time anyway, but we have no confirmation. It was working ok last time I tried -- cca 6/2010. Pavel -- (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
