* David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday 02 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
