On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Nils Faerber wrote:
> Concerning the kernel internal power management interface we should surely
> stick with the alread implemented routines and not reinvent the wheel.
> Also a compatible /proc/apm may be nice but I do not think that this is
> important.
> Power saving on the iPaq is IMHO much different from power management on a
> regular PC apart from the fact that it is handled completely different. Desktop
> PCs use BIOS calls and BIOS generated events for the management. And if I
> remember correctly there is no such thing as a BIOS on the iPaq and expecially
> none with an APM or ACPI interface.
> We should think about new ways of interfacing and try not to stick to
> oldfashioned methods or you might end up implementing an APM compliant kernel
> power management driver just for the sake to be compliant. APM was made for
> notebooks, ACPI for general purpose PCs (desktop and notebooks). None of the
> two is especially useful for PDAs given you do not have a supporting BIOS.
The kernel internals is up to us to implement it the best way it fits on
an handheld. However we really should stick to already used interfaces
like ACPI and the like. It doesn't mean we need an APM/ACPI BIOS, but
only for the standard user space tools to produce the expected results
through the standard API. The SA11x0 sleep mode sounds like a "suspend"
to me, etc...
Nicolas
Received on Tue Sep 19 06:42:10 2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 04 2004 - 09:43:42 EDT