[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Trying to run 2.6.0-test3
"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <> replied to me:

> > > > Guess why I compiled it without ACPI support and with APM support.
> > > > [...]. Linux doesn't panic when its default ACPI takes over, but it
> > > > does prevent APM from working.)
> > >
> > > If you turn ACPI on, you won't need APM support.
> >
[though I deleted it this time]
> Yes, I tried reading. You said Linux doesn't panic while using ACPI, so
> I supposed ACPI just worked but the problem was you wanted APM support.

Since Linux doesn't panic, ACPI turns into a no-op. Yes that's better than
Windows 2000 blue screening, but no it's not as good as APM support.

The present status of APM support is that the command "apm -s" still
suspends the laptop but the hotkey Fn+F10 gets ignored. In kernel 2.4.19
the hotkey was interpreted as a more power-hungry variation of standby (same
as "apm -S") so I hacked 2.4.19 to make it do suspend, but in kernel
2.6.0-test3 the hotkey doesn't even reach the apm driver. But this is a
separate issue from the one that caused you to think I should turn on ACPI's

> > > To be sincere, I don't know exactly why "pci=usepirqmask" needs to be
> > > used. I'm no hardware expert. But I know that I needed it when I
> > > wasn't using ACPI.
> >
> > Hmm. Then some dependency seems to be broken in kernel compilation.
> > When ACPI is not compiled in, it should know that the effect of
> > "pci=usepirqmask" should be compiled in (whatever that effect is).
> It's not a problem with dependencies. On ACPI-enabled kernels, you using
> ACPI routing.

Then it *is* a problem with dependencies. In kernel 2.6.0-test1 through
test3, I set all configuration options myself, instead of inheriting
anything from SuSE's 2.4.19 defaults. I compiled 2.6.0 without ACPI. Since
this is not an ACPI-enabled kernel, no one should be expecting me to use
ACPI routing.

> If you boot using "acpi=off", then you're using standard
> PCI routing and that, in turn, on same machines, it warns you to use
> "pci=usepirqmask".

But this combination of facts remains very curious:
In 2.4.19, where the kernel is still ACPI-enabled, where it is absolutely
necessary for me to use "acpi=off apm=on", it doesn't warn to use
In 2.6.0-test3, where the kernel is not ACPI-enabled (because I
config'ed it not to be), where it is redundant for me to use
"acpi=off apm=on", it is warning me to use "pci=usepirqmask".

This combination of facts is exactly the opposite of what you think it
should be. I'd say it looks like a bug in a dependency condition.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.092 / U:1.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site