Prev: [PATCH 6/8] acpi_pad: uses MONITOR/MWAIT, so it doesn't need to clear TS_POLLING
Next: [PATCH 1/8] cpuidle: fail to register if !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
From: Pavel Machek on 16 Jun 2010 04:00
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...

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: [PATCH 6/8] acpi_pad: uses MONITOR/MWAIT, so it doesn't need to clear TS_POLLING
Next: [PATCH 1/8] cpuidle: fail to register if !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE