re: apm.

As far as I can tell we don't use that call nor do we use the per-device APM
stuff because it rarely works except in the case of video.

For per-device power management, both win98 and w2k now use ACPI in addition
to bus standard specific power management standards.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Drochner [mailto:drochner@zel459.zel.kfa-juelich.de]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 9:11 AM
To: Adam Glass (Exchange)
Cc: 'M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de'; itohy@netbsd.org; soren@wheel.dk;
tech-kern@netbsd.org; 'l Christoph Badura'
Subject: Re: ym driver 



adamg@Exchange.Microsoft.com said:
> Well the PNP ISA/BIOS specs suck. 

There must be a reason that there is a "clarifications"
paper for each spec issued...
(...while the PnP specs are relatively well written
compared to the BIOS boot stuff.)

> I can tell you that MS does not enforce those limitations for PNP BIOS or
> ACPI nodes.  ISAPNP does enforce those limitations for obvious reasons.

I guessed it. Otherwise the vendors would not get away with
their non-conforming BIOSes. I was hoping it is a minority, but
it appears now that it is a significant fraction. So we have to be
generous too.

While we are here: Does the "get APM table" call enjoy any
popularity? I was playing around with powering down individual
devices via APM and found that the PnP BIOS call which would
provide the missing link between APM logical IDs and real
devices is not supported on my boxes.

best regards
Matthias