[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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)

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-16 09:55    [W:0.095 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site