|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | kpowersave doesn't start | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1 | Reporter: | Andreas Schwab <schwab> |
| Component: | Other | Assignee: | Thomas Renninger <trenn> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | dkukawka |
| Version: | Beta 5 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Other | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
Andreas Schwab
2006-01-08 00:48:52 UTC
This may be because /dev/apm does not exist on PPC anymore? I will have a look ... Strange, kpowersave should check for /proc/apm, which should also exists on a G4/5 PPC. If neither /proc/acpi nor /proc/apm exists, it's not worth to start kpowersave (and also powersaved), this is intended. Andreas can you check for /dev/apm_bios (seems to not exist anymore on new PPC versions, but shouldn't matter anymore) and /proc/apm (this one must exist on a non ACPI system to get (k)powersave started). Why do you need apm or acpi? It's completely useless for cpufreq. I don't know any machine that does cpufreq and not at least APM or ACPI. The powersave daemon is written to at least have an APM or ACPI interface... Holger and I discussed to add a dummy interface/class, but until now I haven't seen a machine where this should be needed. Cpufreq has nothing at all to do with apm or acpi. That's a fact. I know. Give me a machine where no APM and ACPI is provided and cpufreq works and we can add the dummy interface. Just remove that useless check. The powersave daemon should run even in the no acpi/no apm case. Does kpowersave any checks for this, Danny? I do not remove the check now for CODE 10, because this is complete untested and we don't know currently if there sidekicks within KPowersave. I has saw your patch for 0.5.8. This patch is incorrect/incomplete. I enable the patch only for ppc and i64 (I don't know ix86/x86_64 machines where this is needed), but note: this is complete untested and I don't support the patch atm. But can't see any sidekicks atm. We also do not exit in the daemon in the "no apm, no acpi" case. There should be enough time to remove the patch if promblems come up. I still would go for removing this check ;-) But it's up to you Danny... Why is this one set to "needinfo from dkukawka"? All modern x86_64/i386 machines have acpi so adding this for ia64/ppc should be sufficient. New x86_64/i386 machines need ACPI to get cpufreq working anyway. I just close this now. Reopen if there still should be concerns. |