![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Linux Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Charles Martin wrote: > > > > I enabled ACPI, and the interrupts are now assigned correctly, > > and in the range of 48-51: > > Good. > > > I didn't realize that ACPI is related to interrupt management > > as well as power control. Is there any downside to using ACPI? > > The downside to ACPI is that it's a complex standard, and with > complexity > comes the inevitable bugs. As you just found out, it does a lot more > than > just power control (the "C" is for "Configuration"). > > On some machines the ACPI support is even more broken than other BIOS > tables, but it's getting better. I infer from this discussion that the old (2.2.x-era) rule-of-thumb about disabling ACPI for SMP systems is now dangerous advice. True? (Even for a 2.4.x series kernel?) Any other "gotchas" with ACPI and SMP systems? Frank Horowitz - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||