From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753882AbYBCFGV (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:06:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751568AbYBCFGJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:06:09 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33093 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751628AbYBCFGG (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:06:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 06:05:37 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Brownell Cc: Pavel Machek , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, kernel list Subject: Re: [linux-pm] sleepy linux self-test Message-ID: <20080203050537.GA18942@elte.hu> References: <20080130131748.GA3796@elf.ucw.cz> <20080202193202.GB31621@elf.ucw.cz> <20080202193843.GB32039@elte.hu> <200802021837.17777.david-b@pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200802021837.17777.david-b@pacbell.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Brownell wrote: > On Saturday 02 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > 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". > > > > > > Yes, it was "quick and dirty". And I do not think it is going upstream > > > in this form...? > > > > which would be a pity - this thing _almost_ started doing suspend and > > resume cycles on my testsystems, all by itself :-) > > OK, here's a version that's cleaner and suspends. Resuming ... > another story, it's currently broken on this ARM board (no > relationship to this testing code). yay! Threw this into my setup. It built fine with the new option disabled and enabled as well. Unfortunately it said this: [ 23.509562] Calling initcall 0xc0c49e00: be_sleepy+0x0/0x170() [ 23.515837] PM: no wakelarm-capable RTC [ 23.517562] initcall 0xc0c49e00: be_sleepy+0x0/0x170() returned 0. (oh, btw., a small typo: s/wakelarm/wakealarm/) is "wakealarm" something generally available on PC RTCs? I'll try to look into the BIOS setup, maybe it's just disabled ... Ingo