lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:53:00 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <>
To:	Len Brown <>
Cc:	Thomas Renninger <>,,,
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] idle-test patches queued for upstream

On Thu 2010-05-27 20:59:07, Len Brown wrote:
> > > ... we think we can do better than ACPI.
> > Why exactly? Is there any info missing in the ACPI tables?
> > Or is this just to be more independent from OEMs?
> ACPI has a few fundmental flaws here.  One is that it reports
> exit latency instead of break-even power duration.
> The other is that it requires a BIOS writer to
> get the tables right.
> Both of these are fatal flaws.

Intel is co-author of ACPI spec, right? So what about fixing those?
> > > Indeed, on my (production level commerically available) Nehalem desktop
> > > the ACPI tables are broken and an ACPI OS idles at 100W.  With this
> > > driver the box idles at 85W.
> > What exactly was broken there?
> Dell's BIOS developer botched a bug fix immediately before the system
> went to market and disabled support for all ACPI C-states except C1.
> After several month of shipping systems, they still were unable
> to ship them with a fixed BIOS.

I always thought that cpu vendors have ways to work with bios manufacturers...

(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists