On Sat 2008-02-02 11:13:21, David Brownell wrote: > 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". Yes, it was "quick and dirty". And I do not think it is going upstream in this form...? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
