From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Fri Oct 13 16:42:51 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id QAA17633;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:42:51 +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 QAA17623;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:42:48 +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 e9D7gkr28022;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:42:47 +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: <20001013164243M.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:42:43 +0900
From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org>
X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140)
Lines: 26
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 868
Subject: [acpi-jp 868] switching APM <-> ACPI (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,

> 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.

OK, I know that but I didn't mean they can co-exist at the same time.
Sorry about that.
What I wanted say is that we can switch Power Management feature from
ACPI mode to Legacy mode dynamically by manipulating SMI command port
and maybe disabling related ACPICA power management components (other
portion like configuration would be still enabled, I think).
ACPI_DISABLE in FADT is available for this purpose.  Is my
understanding correct?

> Why do you want/need APM at all? Once ACPI support is finished, there should
> be absolutely no need for it, I think.

Because S2 - S4 transition is no so easy to implement ;-)
Until we fully support them, I want to use APM features (especially
hibernation) by switching to Legacy mode explicitly.

Of course APM is not needed once ACPI support is finished, I agreed.

Thanks
