From owner-freebsd-mobile Wed Nov 19 12:33:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23533 for mobile-outgoing; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:33:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-mobile) Received: from kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi (ari@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi [194.197.169.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23502 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:33:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ari@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi) Received: from localhost (ari@localhost) by kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA01181; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:33:06 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:33:06 +0200 (EET) From: Ari Suutari To: Nate Williams cc: Ari Suutari , freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: APM and Compaq Contura 400CX In-Reply-To: <199711182043.NAA03016@mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Nate Williams wrote: > > it receives many extraneous PMEV_SUSPENDREQ events. > > I guess that this is caused by bios not clearing > > the event correctly in this situation, since adding > > a small delay before calling apm_processevent makes > > everything to work OK. > > Are you running the latest/greatest bits in apm.c (v1.65)? > Yep, 1.65 it is. > If so, how long of a delay are you using? > This was just an experiment. The delay is 1 second, which is quite long I guess. I could try to iterate what is the minimum. (I am also willing to test other solutions to this if needed.) > This is no good. I could easily fix this, but I'm not sure what's the > best way to do this and still maintain compatability with other > machines/specificiations. Fixing it to work on your machine may break > it on other machines. :( I tried first adding a flag into apm_suspend, which makes it just return if it has already been called. Worked also, but it doesn't feel like a very clean solution either. Ari Lappeenranta, Finland