[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100616075259.GA1671@ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:53:00 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
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...
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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