[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:0.028 / U:21.728 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site