On Sunday 27 May 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > f5f72b46c349fefcfd4421b2213c6ffb324c5e56 appears to break the userspace > interface to the CMOS alarm. This could previously be accessed via > /proc/acpi/alarm ... I was a bit surprised the ACPI team didn't have more comments on that issue, myself. Thing is, all of /proc/acpi/* is deprecated (scheduled for removal in barely over one month!) and nobody had found any actual users of that "alarm" file when they searched for them a while ago. I suppose the conclusion then was that there are no applications using it. > I'm not actually sure why this is the case. It doesn't look like the two > interfaces are fundamentally incompatible. ISTR the issue is that ACPI only allows one chunk of code to hook into the relevant notifications. So: either /proc/acpi/wakeup; or /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm; but not both. > I agree that removing the > proc code is a good long-term aim, but it'd be nice to be able to test > the new RTC code without removing existing functionality. Coexistence is unfortunately problematic here. And with "long term" documented to be a bit over a month ... I guess all I can say is that if you can come up with a good patch to make both available, please do so. - Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
