Re: enabling apm on laptop
-- Charlie Reiman <creiman@kefta.com> wrote
(on Wednesday, 11 December 2002, 11:56 AM -0800):
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew Weier O'Phinney [mailto:matthew@weierophinney.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:45 AM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: enabling apm on laptop
> >
> >
> > -- Charlie Reiman <creiman@kefta.com> wrote
> > (on Wednesday, 11 December 2002, 09:06 AM -0800):
> .....
> > > I don't think this is true. I'm running sid with 2.4bf and I was able to
> > > "apt-get install apmd" with no problems.
> > But did apm work? I was able to install apmd as well, but it didn't work
> > until I'd installed an x86tsc kernel image.
> >
> > The 2.4bf series (bf == boot floppy) typically doesn't have
> > non-essential drivers compiled in, such as apm support, and this is why
> > I make the suggestions I do. My experience has been on both unstable and
> > testing; if you have a different experience, please note the
> > kernel-image package you're using so the OP can check his/her image
> > against it.
>
> Well, it tells me the battery level, knows if the power is attached, and can
> put the machine to sleep although I have to do it manually (apm -s). Should
> it do much else? Hibernate would be nice (and almost works) but it comes up
> with a corrupted screen and never recovers.
Yeah, wouldn't hibernate be nice...? That was one of the best features
of my old notebook -- except that after a month using Win98SE, it
stopped waking up from it. That's when I first installed linux...
So, apmd is working on your machine with a 2.4bf series kernel -- which
one? 'Cause that's another option for the OP.
I've got 2.4.17 or 2.4.18 on my wife's old laptop, and that bf kernel
didn't have apm enabled -- which is when I had to install the kernel
again. The same thing happened when I installed on our new PIV-1.7GHz
using a 686-bf2.4 kernel earlier this summer.
> It sounds like your experience is broader than mine but I'm not sure why it
> would matter that the apm support is compiled in or loaded. My is definately
> being loaded but it works just the same. I didn't do anyting special besides
> apt-get install apmd.
I used to compile my kernels by hand, as it sped up the boot process and
allowed non-standard hardware (until two years ago, many distros didn't
ship with USB support enabled as it was still considered experimental,
and many didn't enable APM in their kernels by default) -- but this was
using different distros than debian.
APM support is one of the kernel options at compile time -- you can have
it compiled statically (i.e., loads all the time) or as a module (loads
if requested), or not at all.
Basically, my experience with the bf2.4 kernels (it wasn't until after
I'd re-installed our desktop machine's kernel that I realized these were
the boot floppy kernels) is that they don't have APM compiled in any way
-- hence the need to install a regular kernel for your architecture.
But if your machine is working with one, send the list the kernel-image
package name you used as it's another option for the OP.
--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net
http://weierophinney.net/
Reply to: