Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.

To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@zirkon.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>, William C Brennan <brennan@netaxs.com>, <debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.
From: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:22:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-id: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.33.0205081515520.28234-100000@opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20020508103058.31741@smtp.wanadoo.fr>

> >The lid status bit apparently has a different function on desktop
> >machines. We cannot find out the machine type by asking the PMU so this is
> >going to be more complex to solve.
>
> Look at the PMU_IOC_CAN_SLEEP ioctl. I don't remember exactly when I added
> it but it has been a long time.

I'll check that out - my kernel has the ioctl, it just doesn't work as
advertised (as in: claims there is no sleep support on Lombard, the
ioctl returns 0). The kernel is 2.4.14-pre8 in case you're wondering.

	Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>

References:
- Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>

Prev by Date: original i(ce)Book ID ?
Next by Date: Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.
Previous by thread: Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.
Next by thread: Re: Arrgh: maybe pmud-utils was a really bad idea.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread