tpctl-users Mailing List for tpctl

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

The W520 doesn't seem to be supported yet. Is there anything I can do to
help out with W520 support?

Hi,
 I just wanted to ask if it s possible to support Lenovo ThinkPad W510 properly.

 The problem is that the directions are completely of. I tested it with
 hdaps_gl and got the following:

 Tilt to the left: hdaps_gl --> backward.
 Tilt to the right: hdaps_gl --> front.
 Tilt to the back: hdaps_gl --> right.
 Tilt to the front: hdaps_gl --> left.

 Since I can't code in C I failed to fix it on my own :-( and inverting
 axis does not resolve this problem.
 I guess the directions are not essential for HDAPS since it works
 flawless, except this little cosmetic problem mentioned above.

 The stock vanilla Linux 2.6.38.2 hdaps module behaves the same line
after adding the W510 to the supported devices.
 I reported this to the hdaps-devel mailing list and opend a bug on SF
for the tp_smapi hdaps module:

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3282939&group_id=1212&atid=101212

 Cheers,
 Bjoern

Dear List and Maintainers,

I am getting lots of these

general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP                                                                                                                     
last sysfs file: 
/sys/devices/LNXSYSTM:00/LNXSYBUS:00/PNP0A08:00/device:00/PNP0C09:00/PNP0C0A:00/power_supply/BAT0/energy_full                              
CPU 0                                                                                                                                                       
Modules linked in:
Pid: 468, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.32.7 #1 7658CTO
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff810e7269>]  [<ffffffff810e7269>] d_free+0x19/0x50
RSP: 0000:ffff88013baffc50  EFLAGS: 00010206
RAX: 0072006500760069 RBX: ffff88011b98ed80 RCX: ffff88011b98edc0
RDX: ffff88011b98ed10 RSI: 0000000000000023 RDI: ffff88011b98ed80
RBP: ffff88011b98ed88 R08: 000000000000004c R09: 8000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffffffff810eae40 R12: ffff880040fe3780
R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffff88013a04cce8 R15: 0000000000000008
FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff880028200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b
CR2: 000000000618f000 CR3: 000000013a3e3000 CR4: 00000000000026f0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Process kswapd0 (pid: 468, threadinfo ffff88013bafe000, task ffff88013bae4980)
Stack:
 ffff88011b98ed80 ffffffff810e72f3 0000000000000000 ffff88011b98ed80
<0> ffff88013a04cc00 ffffffff810e7581 ffff88013baffcb0 ffff88013baffca0
<0> ffff880028210ef0 ffff88013baffd14 ffff88011b98a4c0 ffff88011b98ed00
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff810e72f3>] ? d_kill+0x53/0x70
 [<ffffffff810e7581>] ? __shrink_dcache_sb+0x271/0x370
 [<ffffffff810e77a0>] ? shrink_dcache_memory+0x120/0x1c0
 [<ffffffff812d3a30>] ? i915_gem_shrink+0x60/0x350
 [<ffffffff810ae40c>] ? shrink_slab+0x12c/0x190
 [<ffffffff810ae93d>] ? kswapd+0x4cd/0x6b0
 [<ffffffff810abe50>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x240
 [<ffffffff81079250>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x30
 [<ffffffff81056fcb>] ? __wake_up_common+0x5b/0x90
 [<ffffffff810ae470>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x6b0
 [<ffffffff81078f66>] ? kthread+0x96/0xa0
 [<ffffffff8102edba>] ? child_rip+0xa/0x20
 [<ffffffff81078ed0>] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0
 [<ffffffff8102edb0>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
Code: 81 e8 9c bc f7 ff eb c8 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 53 48 89 fb 48 8b 
87 88 00 00 00 48 85 c0 74 0b 48 8b 40 20 48 85 c0 74 02 <ff> d0 48 83 7b 20 
00 74 16 48 8d 7b 50 48 c7 c6 40 7a 0e 81 5b
RIP  [<ffffffff810e7269>] d_free+0x19/0x50
 RSP <ffff88013baffc50>
---[ end trace df00c1ac479e24a8 ]---

type of errors. Common to all of them is the line
last sysfs file: 
/sys/devices/LNXSYSTM:00/LNXSYBUS:00/PNP0A08:00/device:00/PNP0C09:00/PNP0C0A:00/power_supply/BAT0/energy_full                              
and it does not happen without smapi patched into the kernel.
Please request additional information if needed.
It's a plain vanilla kernel version 2.6.32.7 on amd64, with tp_smapi patch 
version 0.40 directly built into the kernel.

Sincerely,

Daniel

On Mon 2008-11-17 15:27:04, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:21:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> >> In summary:
> >> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> >> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> >> and contagiously evil.
> >>
> >
> > Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue.  It means "I  
> > certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."  
> >   Code quality is important but separate.
> 
> Indeed; so what were Greg KH's complaints, specifically?  Were they a
> code review issue or was just complaining about the anonymity issue?

Anonymity issue.

I'm working on similar driver for HP machines, and it would be great
 to be able to test that on my thinkpad, so I'm willing to clean up
 the code if required, maintain it, whatever...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Shem Multinymous wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <jr...@gm...> wrote:
> > > >> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> > > >> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> > > >> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> > > >> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> > > >> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> > > > 
> > > > We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> > > > In summary:
> > > > I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> > > > except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> > > > and contagiously evil.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue.  It means "I 
> > > certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code." 
> > >    Code quality is important but separate.
> > 
> > We've discussed this issue on the internal suse mailing lists, and
> > concluded that the solution is simple: someone from IBM, Lenovo or
> > whoever they license the technology from should sign off on the code.
> 
> That would be nice, yes.
> 
> > But implementing this got stuck at some stage.
> > 
> > Can anybody help with info about who's responsible for this part of
> > the ThinkPad?
> 
> SuSE has direct management-level and engineering-level contacts with the
> Lenovo team responsible for the ThinkPad.  IMO, the contact needs to be done
> through those channels (which are Linux-friendly).
> 
> If SuSE decided not to do it, they must have had their reasons.  I wouldn't
> know them, but I can guess as much as anyone else, and my pet guess is that
> they are waiting for an opportune time.

SuSE asked, Lenovo said no. We can probably try again...
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Shem Multinymous wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <jr...@gm...> wrote:
> > >> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> > >> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> > >> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> > >> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> > >> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> > > 
> > > We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> > > In summary:
> > > I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> > > except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> > > and contagiously evil.
> > > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue.  It means "I 
> > certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code." 
> >    Code quality is important but separate.
> 
> We've discussed this issue on the internal suse mailing lists, and
> concluded that the solution is simple: someone from IBM, Lenovo or
> whoever they license the technology from should sign off on the code.

That would be nice, yes.

> But implementing this got stuck at some stage.
> 
> Can anybody help with info about who's responsible for this part of
> the ThinkPad?

SuSE has direct management-level and engineering-level contacts with the
Lenovo team responsible for the ThinkPad.  IMO, the contact needs to be done
through those channels (which are Linux-friendly).

If SuSE decided not to do it, they must have had their reasons.  I wouldn't
know them, but I can guess as much as anyone else, and my pet guess is that
they are waiting for an opportune time.

If you work with SuSE, you could try to use your internal channels to find
out what really is happening.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Shem Multinymous wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <jr...@gm...> wrote:
> >> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> >> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> >> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> >> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> >> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> > 
> > We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> > In summary:
> > I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> > except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> > and contagiously evil.
> > 
> 
> Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue.  It means "I 
> certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code." 
>    Code quality is important but separate.

We've discussed this issue on the internal suse mailing lists, and
concluded that the solution is simple: someone from IBM, Lenovo or
whoever they license the technology from should sign off on the code.
But implementing this got stuck at some stage.

Can anybody help with info about who's responsible for this part of
the ThinkPad?

Thanks,
Miklos

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:21:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
>> In summary:
>> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
>> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
>> and contagiously evil.
>>
>
> Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue.  It means "I  
> certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."  
>   Code quality is important but separate.

Indeed; so what were Greg KH's complaints, specifically?  Were they a
code review issue or was just complaining about the anonymity issue?
(Note that Shem has also been willing to disclose is identity to
someone who would be willing/able to vouch that he's a real person,
and so we would have just as much legal traceability back to him as
any other piece of code which was submitted with a Signed-off-by.)

        	      	  	   	      - Ted

Shem Multinymous wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <jr...@gm...> wrote:
>> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
>> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
>> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
>> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
>> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> 
> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> In summary:
> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> and contagiously evil.
> 

Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue.  It means "I 
certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code." 
   Code quality is important but separate.

	-hpa

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Shem Multinymous <mul...@gm...> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <jr...@gm...> wrote:
>> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
>> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
>> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
>> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
>> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
>
> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> In summary:
> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> and contagiously evil.

Does Greg know that both Linus and Andrew have ok'd a second signoff?

>
>  Shem
>

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <jr...@gm...> wrote:
> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.

We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
In summary:
I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
and contagiously evil.

  Shem

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hp...@zy...> wrote:
> Hanno Böck wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to ask if there is some status on possible kernel inclusion. On
>> http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
>> I read
>> "will not be accepted upstream due to authorship issues (written by an
>> anonymous developer)"
>>
>> Now I can see copyright notices in all source files, though they may be
>> incomplete. But anyway, would this be a real problem?
>> Is there any rule that kernel code needs a named author? As long as it has a
>> fitting license, shouldn't this be fine?
>>
>
> We need to be able to identify who owns the copyright.  For all we know,
> the anonymous submitter might not have the right to his own work (work
> for hire, etc.) or it could have been produced in violation of NDA
> terms, etc.

There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.

>
>        -hpa
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to maj...@vg...
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Hanno Böck wrote:
> 
> I wanted to ask if there is some status on possible kernel inclusion. On
> http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
> I read
> "will not be accepted upstream due to authorship issues (written by an 
> anonymous developer)"
> 
> Now I can see copyright notices in all source files, though they may be 
> incomplete. But anyway, would this be a real problem?
> Is there any rule that kernel code needs a named author? As long as it has a 
> fitting license, shouldn't this be fine?
> 

We need to be able to identify who owns the copyright.  For all we know,
the anonymous submitter might not have the right to his own work (work
for hire, etc.) or it could have been produced in violation of NDA
terms, etc.

	-hpa

Hi,

For thinkpad users, there is the tp_smapi module (along with thinkpad_ec and 
an improved hdaps driver):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpctl

I wanted to ask if there is some status on possible kernel inclusion. On
http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
I read
"will not be accepted upstream due to authorship issues (written by an 
anonymous developer)"

Now I can see copyright notices in all source files, though they may be 
incomplete. But anyway, would this be a real problem?
Is there any rule that kernel code needs a named author? As long as it has a 
fitting license, shouldn't this be fine?

(tp_smapi and thinkpad_ec are gpl2 or later, hdaps is gpl2, so this should be 
just fine)

cu,

-- 
Hanno Böck		Blog:		http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20		Jabber/Mail:	ha...@hb...

http://waldbesetzung.blogsport.de/ Waldbesetzung gegen Flughafenausbau 
Frankfurt, 28. - 30.11.
http://www.jukss.de/ Jugemdumweltkongress, 27.12.-4.1.

I had this feeling too, but it's not obvious from the website.

thanks,
V

On 02/01/2008, Thomas Hood <jd...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tpctl is obsolete.  It used to work with the "thinkpad modules" which
> are also obsolete.
>
> tp_smapi works on its own without a utility program.
> --
> Thomas Hood
>
> Viktor Nagy wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I own a T61 7664-18G, and tried to install and run tpctl with tp_smapi
> > under Ubuntu GG
> >
> > * tp_smapi seemingly works as a module (I set stop_charging successhully)
> > * installed the debian packages (thinkpad-base_5.8-4_i386.deb,
> > tpctl_4.17-1_i386.deb)
> > * as a result I have a thinkpad file under /etc/modprobe.d containing
> > all (both the for devfs and w/o devfs) the alias lines written on the
> > website, the /etc/devfs/conf.s/thinkpad file also exists and is fine
> >
> > Still when I try to run tpctl (or configure-thinkpad, that I also
> > installed) I get the error in the subject. Any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks, V
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tpctl-users mailing list
> > Tpc...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpctl-users
>
>

Hi,

tpctl is obsolete.  It used to work with the "thinkpad modules" which
are also obsolete.

tp_smapi works on its own without a utility program.
-- 
Thomas Hood

Viktor Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I own a T61 7664-18G, and tried to install and run tpctl with tp_smapi
> under Ubuntu GG
> 
> * tp_smapi seemingly works as a module (I set stop_charging successhully)
> * installed the debian packages (thinkpad-base_5.8-4_i386.deb,
> tpctl_4.17-1_i386.deb)
> * as a result I have a thinkpad file under /etc/modprobe.d containing
> all (both the for devfs and w/o devfs) the alias lines written on the
> website, the /etc/devfs/conf.s/thinkpad file also exists and is fine
> 
> Still when I try to run tpctl (or configure-thinkpad, that I also
> installed) I get the error in the subject. Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks, V
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Tpctl-users mailing list
> Tpc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpctl-users

Hello,

I own a T61 7664-18G, and tried to install and run tpctl with tp_smapi
under Ubuntu GG

* tp_smapi seemingly works as a module (I set stop_charging successhully)
* installed the debian packages (thinkpad-base_5.8-4_i386.deb,
tpctl_4.17-1_i386.deb)
* as a result I have a thinkpad file under /etc/modprobe.d containing
all (both the for devfs and w/o devfs) the alias lines written on the
website, the /etc/devfs/conf.s/thinkpad file also exists and is fine

Still when I try to run tpctl (or configure-thinkpad, that I also
installed) I get the error in the subject. Any ideas?

Thanks, V

I have just released a new version that fixes this problem. Thanks.

On 7/18/06, Nick Papadonis <npa...@ya...> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> The attached patch allows configure-trackpoint to work with Fedora Core
> 5 kernel.  It may break older kernel support.  Please feel free to
> integrate into the source.
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.17-1.2145_FC5
>
> Nick
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Tpctl-users mailing list
> Tpc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpctl-users
>
>
>

Hi Folks,

The attached patch allows configure-trackpoint to work with Fedora Core
5 kernel.  It may break older kernel support.  Please feel free to
integrate into the source.

$ uname -a
Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.17-1.2145_FC5

Nick

Hi,

Just reporting how tp_smapi is working on my T42.

I installed tp_smapi with "make install HDAPS=1" and that seemed to work fine. 

Actually, hdaps is kind of a joke because there's not any application (that I 
can see) that actually puts that gyroscopic information to any good use, but 
aside from that both tp_spami and hdaps seem to be working concurrently.

The /only/ problem I'm having (and you've probably heard this before) is with 
stop_charge_thresh, which is giving me a "Function not implemented" when I 
cat it.  I grep'ed for that string in your source but I didn't find it.  I 
guess it's a default message coming from another subsystem.

Here's the behavior I'm seeing with the functioning start_charge_thresh 
parameter.  Say I've set that parameter to 40% for a conservative threshold.  
If I plug in the AC power when the battery is below 40%, the battery charges, 
but doesn't stop after it's passed 40%.  If I plug in the AC when the battery 
is above 40%, the battery doesn't charge; it just sits idle.  

I assume that this behavior makes sense when used in conjunction with a 
working implementation of stop_charge_thresh.

So here's what I'm wondering about:

1) Is there some misinformation with respect to anything I've written above?

2) Do you think it is possible to implement stop_charge_thresh?  What's your 
estimation of the gating problem?  Are there any diagnostics I can do?

3) I don't know much about the subsystems, but I can pick it up, and hopefully 
help out.  Feel free to talk about functions and macros explicitly -- 
anything to establish good starting points when analyzing the code.

Regards,
Sukant Hajra

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ltp] Re: [ANN] tp_smapi - a new Linux SMAPI driver
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:01:04 +0200
From: Shem Multinymous <mul...@gm...>
To: Thomas Hood <jd...@ya...>
References: <439...@ya...>	 <418...@ma...>	 <439...@ya...>	 <418...@ma...>	 <439...@ya...>	
<418...@ma...>	 <439...@ya...>

On 12/5/05, Thomas Hood <jd...@ya...> wrote:
> It is my impression from what I have read before that SMAPI and ACPI
> firmware routines interfere with each other.  (I still use APM so I
> haven't tested this myself.)  What have you found?

I did get some errors from the ACPI system, but this was on the
machine where I was hacking at the code for several days without
rebooting, so it may not be indicative of a real problem. Seems to
work fine apart from that.

  Shem

Shem Multinymous wrote:
> I uploaded a new release, and changes the homepage to mention it at a
> few strategic locations.

Looks good.

I am glad that someone finally reimplemented the smapi module using
contemporary interfaces.  As I wrote some time ago on the linux-thinkpad
list, I didn't find myself motivated to do the necessary work.

It is my impression from what I have read before that SMAPI and ACPI
firmware routines interfere with each other.  (I still use APM so I
haven't tested this myself.)  What have you found?

Ref: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=803428&group_id=1212&atid=351212
-- 
Thomas

Please subscribe me to the this list.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

So the only way using this tool is by using apm?
Will it be possible to correct this issue?
If not this programm (and also tpctl i guess) should use a warning 
message, that asks the user if he really wants to continue (if he uses 
acpi).

btw. because i thought, i allready used ntpctl without any problems. i 
just tried it out again (seems like i really don't want to work).
Well as long as i don't change any settings it works (configure-thinkpad 
allready stopped my computer when i only started it)... but IF i change 
a setting.. the same again. at least my file system survived this time.

Thomas Hood wrote:
  > It seems that SMAPI and ACPI cannot be used at the same time.
 >

Michael Meier wrote:
> Yes, i'm using ACPI.

It seems that SMAPI and ACPI cannot be used at the same time.

-- 
Thomas Hood

2003	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec (4)
2004	Jan (1)	Feb	Mar	Apr	May (1)	Jun	Jul	Aug (2)	Sep (17)	Oct	Nov (8)	Dec (3)
2005	Jan (5)	Feb	Mar	Apr (1)	May	Jun	Jul	Aug (6)	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec (2)
2006	Jan	Feb (1)	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul (1)	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr (1)	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan (3)	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov (11)	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb (1)	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr (1)	May	Jun (1)	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

tpctl-users Mailing List for tpctl

tpctl-users — discussion regarding tpctl usage