From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933703AbYBBTNb (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:13:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757380AbYBBTNZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:13:25 -0500 Received: from smtp120.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.93]:44432 "HELO smtp120.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753870AbYBBTNY (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:13:24 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=rr4k0ZGbknYpVZpknkkqXne+Y7+bTSO+9dg5Tn3XHs8xgGsk9p4j0Yp5/wngw+ANiZ9P2SnxjBNKPLyTL/YUGYY8tb5eJ1yt03otS0aXyTCk/kqA1jJrQQbasf4a2p1ku1rvQuCuuBX2ypihdN23ynKVlLBoHkYzxSmUz4uwePU= ; X-YMail-OSG: gR.GyCcVM1mORX5FpsBIKBkWubuMt0nq8ETc9ZMgoKtxLC.79DJ5inu_ZpcKu86_L3bZpFPImg-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: David Brownell To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [linux-pm] sleepy linux self-test Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:13:21 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Pavel Machek , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, kernel list References: <20080130131748.GA3796@elf.ucw.cz> <200802020931.38689.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080202180002.GB26560@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080202180002.GB26560@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802021113.22130.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 02 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Yep, you are right, but that is the easy issue to fix. > > > > Which is why I was puzzled that you didn't start out doing it the > > "right" way ... even just hard-wiring the dubious assumption that > > "rtc0" is the right RTC to use. :) > > because this was mostly about an quick & easy hack to see whether it > makes sense at all to automate the testing of suspend/resume. I think you should have written "quick and dirty". ;) It would have been easier to just use the public interface and hard-wire "rtc0". But going directly to the hardware was dirtier, and more in the spirit of "hack that obviously shouldn't go upstream until it gets done properly". - Dave