apm vs. acpi

Wed Dec 29 20:22:29 UTC 2004

No, It could be some time in/after 1999, But how do i get rid of this
message ?

                      David Cary Hart                                                                                                    
                      <Fedora at TQMcube.com        To:       For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>                    
                      >                          cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                   Subject:  Re: apm vs. acpi                                                              
                      fedora-list-bounces                                                                                                
                      @redhat.com                                                                                                        

                      12/29/2004 02:15 PM                                                                                                
                      Please respond to                                                                                                  
                      For users of Fedora                                                                                                
                      Core releases                                                                                                      

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 13:42 -0600, AdabalaP at schneider.com wrote:
> I get a message at the time boot from ACPI, which says some thing like
> this;
> ACPI cut-off age=CCYY (~1997) try using ACPI=force
>
> I tried giving the kernel parameter ACPI=force, but his still pop's up ?
>
ACPI vintage is now a kernel parameter. Are you sure that your pre-1997
machine supports ACPI to begin with?

> Thanks.
>
>
>
>

>                       Ed Hill

>                       <ed at eh3.com>               To:       For users of
Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
>                       Sent by:                   cc:

>                       fedora-list-bounces        Subject:  Re: apm vs.
acpi
>                       @redhat.com

>

>

>                       12/29/2004 01:15 PM

>                       Please respond to

>                       ed; Please respond

>                       to For users of

>                       Fedora Core

>                       releases

>

>

>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 08:48 -1000, Amy M wrote:
> > All things considered, this fedora-list has become perhaps one of the
> > best forums to learn Linux.  Our sincere thanks to those who are
> > gracious enough to donate their time answering questions that sometimes
> > may seem ridiculous.
> >
> > My question now is: From what I have read, it appears that if I want to
> > do suspend to ram, I have to forgo acpi and use apm.  Performance-wise,
> > would anyone care to comment on the pros and cons of acpi vis-a-vis
> > apm?  Thanks again.
>
> Hi Amy,
>
> I can only relate my FC kernel-2.6 experiences for one laptop, a
> ThinkPad A22p (PIII-900) and they are:
>
>  - with very recent kernels (eg. 2.6.9-1.681_FC3) both APM
>    and ACPI suspend-to-RAM work
>  - with both I often need to unload and then re-load the
>    sound kernel modules
>  - APM:
>    - uses *very* little power when suspended to RAM (lasts
>      for many days starting from a full charge)
>    - can occasionally have problems with pcmcia (even when
>      all cards are removed) so I usually use:
>        "/etc/init.d/pcmcia stop ; apm -s"
>      and then restart pcmcia after wake-up with:
>        "/etc/init.d/pcmcia start"
>    - results in lockups about once every 40--50 suspend-
>      resume cycles
>  - ACPI:
>    - has no apparent problems with pcmcia
>    - experienced no lockups (in about ~60 cycles)
>    - uses a *LOT* (perhaps as much as 10X) more battery
>      power while suspended to RAM
>    - suspends and resumes very quickly
>    - routinely gives a kernel error on wakeup saying
>      something about interruptable_sleep() but they seem
>      to be harmless
>
> Having done many hundreds of suspend-resume cycles using both APM and
> ACPI, I've decided to stick with APM to reduce the battery usage.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> Edward H. Hill III, PhD
> office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
>              Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
> emails:  eh3 at mit.edu                ed at eh3.com
> URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
> phone:   617-253-0098
> fax:     617-253-4464
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Total Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence
http://www.TQMcube.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list