Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "Norman Diamond" <> | Subject | Re: Trying to run 2.6.0-test3 | Date | Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:21:06 +0900 |
| |
"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> replied to me:
> > > > Guess why I compiled it without ACPI support and with APM support. > > > > [...]. Linux doesn't panic when its default ACPI takes over, but it > > > > does prevent APM from working.) > > > > > > If you turn ACPI on, you won't need APM support. > > > > WRONG. ACPI DOESN'T WORK ON THE MACHINE I'M DOING THIS ON. DID > > YOU TRY READING WHAT YOU QUOTED THERE? [though I deleted it this time] > > Yes, I tried reading. You said Linux doesn't panic while using ACPI, so > I supposed ACPI just worked but the problem was you wanted APM support.
Since Linux doesn't panic, ACPI turns into a no-op. Yes that's better than Windows 2000 blue screening, but no it's not as good as APM support.
The present status of APM support is that the command "apm -s" still suspends the laptop but the hotkey Fn+F10 gets ignored. In kernel 2.4.19 the hotkey was interpreted as a more power-hungry variation of standby (same as "apm -S") so I hacked 2.4.19 to make it do suspend, but in kernel 2.6.0-test3 the hotkey doesn't even reach the apm driver. But this is a separate issue from the one that caused you to think I should turn on ACPI's failures.
> > > To be sincere, I don't know exactly why "pci=usepirqmask" needs to be > > > used. I'm no hardware expert. But I know that I needed it when I > > > wasn't using ACPI. > > > > Hmm. Then some dependency seems to be broken in kernel compilation. > > When ACPI is not compiled in, it should know that the effect of > > "pci=usepirqmask" should be compiled in (whatever that effect is). > > It's not a problem with dependencies. On ACPI-enabled kernels, you using > ACPI routing.
Then it *is* a problem with dependencies. In kernel 2.6.0-test1 through test3, I set all configuration options myself, instead of inheriting anything from SuSE's 2.4.19 defaults. I compiled 2.6.0 without ACPI. Since this is not an ACPI-enabled kernel, no one should be expecting me to use ACPI routing.
> If you boot using "acpi=off", then you're using standard > PCI routing and that, in turn, on same machines, it warns you to use > "pci=usepirqmask".
But this combination of facts remains very curious: In 2.4.19, where the kernel is still ACPI-enabled, where it is absolutely necessary for me to use "acpi=off apm=on", it doesn't warn to use "pci=usepirqmask". In 2.6.0-test3, where the kernel is not ACPI-enabled (because I config'ed it not to be), where it is redundant for me to use "acpi=off apm=on", it is warning me to use "pci=usepirqmask".
This combination of facts is exactly the opposite of what you think it should be. I'd say it looks like a bug in a dependency condition.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |