Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:29:21 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.dk.tfs.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/apm apm.c apm_setup.h apm_setup.s src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC LINT src/sys/i386/include apm_bios.h Message-ID: <27553.859836561@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:02:36 PDT." <199703311702.KAA27958@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199703311702.KAA27958@rocky.mt.sri.com>, Nate Williams writes: >> Modified: sys/i386/apm apm.c apm_setup.h apm_setup.s >> sys/i386/conf GENERIC LINT >> sys/i386/include apm_bios.h >> Log: >> Sanitize APM a bit. Convert various #ifdef to id_flags instead. >> You may want to add "flags 0x31" to apm0 if you have a lousy >> implementation. Read LINT. >> > >APM_IDLE_CPU still exists in swtch.s but is no longer documented. Where it probably does less harm than it used to. I don't think we have anybody who have documented that calling apm_idle/busy was better than simply halting the CPU, right ? I think that for the machines where apm_idle halts the CPU, we might as well do it ourselves (unless we can document a saving in power of course. For the machines there merely slows the clock, it should be done on a basis of %idle_cpu on a ~10sec or more timescale. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27553.859836561>