From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Fri Oct 13 16:41:33 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id QAA17429;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:41:33 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from tasogare.imasy.or.jp (daemon@tasogare.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.5])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA17419;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:41:31 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost (iwasaki.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.92])
	by tasogare.imasy.or.jp (8.10.2+3.3W/3.7W-tasogare/smtpfeed 1.07) with ESMTP id e9D7fSr27750;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:41:28 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org)
To: andrew.grover@intel.com
Cc: iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org, acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <4148FEAAD879D311AC5700A0C969E8905DE3DD@orsmsx35.jf.intel.com>
References: <4148FEAAD879D311AC5700A0C969E8905DE3DD@orsmsx35.jf.intel.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.1 on Emacs 19.34 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20001013164125V.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:41:25 +0900
From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org>
X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140)
Lines: 18
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 867
Subject: [acpi-jp 867] RE: ACPICA proposal: new OSI functions
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org

Hi,

Sorry, my explanation was not enough. Only AcpiSetMode() (and
AcpiGetMode?) is related with co-existance of ACPI and APM.  So I'll
write another mail separately on it.

The rest of my proposal are mostly general, I think, especially
knowing enabled events is useful for some context, not only for
stopping event generation (actually we need this for S5 transition on
some laptops, we don't need to return to original mode and remove SCI
handler by AcpiDisable, just want to disable all events.)

Thanks

> While your proposals are reasonable, they are based on the assumption that
> ACPI and APM can co-exist. They can not. (well, that's an overstatement.
> ACPI *should* not co-exist with APM.) On Windows and Linux, they are
> mutually exclusive.
