[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimqE2YZCH5GonnqeHGGBwzggTymauS1KYuTsqOX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:18 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] apm: orphan the driver
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Phasing out APM idle at least would be reasonable. resumably even if the old
> laptops still work they are likely on AC because their batteries have
> long died. So using a bit more power in idle shouldn't be a big
> issue.
Agreed. Especially since I'm not at all convinced that APM CPU idling
ever really worked in the first place.
And as you say, it's not a catastrophic failure even if we were to
remove it, and even if it were to have mattered on those old laptops
years ago. I think we can happily say "not worth worrying about" when
it comes to APM_CPU_IDLE.
And shutdown, suspend and screensaver should all be much easier to
continue to support - they shouldn't have any serious infrastructure
issues.
Linus
--
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