[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4715DCF1.30507@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:59:13 +0200
From: John Sigler <linux.kernel@...e.fr>
To: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>, len.brown@...el.com
CC: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
robert.moore@...el.com
Subject: Re: halt does not shut the system down
Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> John Sigler wrote:
>
>> Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>
>>> John Sigler wrote:
>>>
>>>> +===================================+
>>>> | Soft-Off by PWR-BTTN |
>>>> |-----------------------------------|
>>>> | Instant-Off ..... [v] |
>>>> | Delay 4 Sec. ..... [ ] |
>>>> | |
>>>> |-----------------------------------|
>>>> | ^V:Move ENTER:Accept ESC:Abort |
>>>> +===================================+
>>>>
>>>> 'Instant-Off' is the appropriate setting, right?
>>>
>>> Actually, default should be 4 sec delay. OS should have a chance to
>>> shut down the system...
>>
>> I don't see why this setting would have an impact on the outcome
>> of the 'halt' and 'poweroff' commands.
>>
> Well, it is not possible to tell, what BIOS writer have connected to this flag...
(It sucks to be stuck with a closed proprietary BIOS.)
I tested the other setting, and it didn't change anything.
The system remains powered on after executing poweroff.
Len: the system is 100% Intel (Intel CPU, Intel north bridge, Intel
south bridge, Intel integrated network controllers). Have Intel
engineers run into the same problem on a similar platform?
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9148
Regards.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists