Subject: Re: MI APM support
To: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
From: Matt Thomas <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 08/11/1999 07:16:06
At 06:28 AM 8/11/99 , Nathan J. Williams wrote:
>I have a minor concern: APM is specifically the name for the
>power-management system used on i386 boxes; does it make sense to call
>power management facilites on other systems (like your SPARC) "APM"?
> From what I know of APM I have to believe that the SPARC power
>management mechanisim is totally different.
>Is the apm(4) interface actually appropriate for the SPARC's power
>management facilites? How close a fit is it? 

For the Tadpole, it's a fairly good fit.  The only thing that doesn't 
fit is Standby mode.  But it can be simulated.  The hardest part will 
be implementing suspend (since the kernel needs to write the contents
of physical memory to partition e (almost like a crash dump)).
Matt Thomas               Internet:
3am Software Foundry      WWW URL:
Cupertino, CA             Disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message