On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 02:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, June 13, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >> On 06/12/2011 01:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >>>> On 06/12/2011 11:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >>>>>> On 06/12/2011 05:12 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 09, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >>>>>>>> From: "Justin P. Mattock"<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> sounds stupid, but taking a glance at the time, and seeing the wrong time, or what seemed
> >>>>>>>> wrong in dmesg, caused me to go into total check the time clock panic mode.. So the patch below adds:
> >>>>>>>> "UTC" Coordinated Universal Time abreviation to the printk so people like me dont flip out over the time!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> before:
> >>>>>>>> [ 0.114915] Time: 1:47:03 Date: 06/09/11
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> after:
> >>>>>>>> [ 0.114728] Time: 5:46:02 UTC Date: 06/09/11
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suspect the goal is to mark messages printed by the PM trace code so that
> >>>>>>> they can be easily distinguished from messages from other sources to avoid
> >>>>>>> confusion. Why do you think it's a good idea to use the "UTC" string for
> >>>>>>> this purpose? The time printed in those messages need not be UTC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It would be better to simply print "RTC time: ..., date: ..." IMO.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Rafael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> well.. if thats better, then thats better.. over here(people that dont
> >>>>>> know what RTC time is) would not get so confused with a simple UTC or
> >>>>>> PDT or whatever the time zone is but if RTC is bettr, then its better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point is we don't know this time is always UTC, so we rather shouldn't
> >>>>> label it as UTC unconditionally, should we?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rafael
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> sounds good to me!!
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what you mean?
> >>>
> >>
> >> with what you are saying "RTC" if anything.. rather than "UTC"
> >
> > So, it looks like you'd like the appended patch to be appiled?
> >
> > Rafael
>
>
> whatever works best with you guys...
OK, I'll queue up the one below for 3.1, then.
> I just tripped out on that, and created what I had sent out..
> >
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: PM: Add "RTC" to PM trace time stamps to avoid confusion
> >
> > Some users are apparently confused by dmesg output from
> > read_magic_time(), which looks like "real" time and date.
> > Add the "RTC" string to time stamps printed by read_magic_time() to
> > avoid that confusion.
> >
> > Reported-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/trace.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/trace.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/trace.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/trace.c
> > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static unsigned int read_magic_time(void
> > unsigned int val;
> >
> > get_rtc_time(&time);
> > - pr_info("Time: %2d:%02d:%02d Date: %02d/%02d/%02d\n",
> > + pr_info("RTC time: %2d:%02d:%02d, date: %02d/%02d/%02d\n",
> > time.tm_hour, time.tm_min, time.tm_sec,
> > time.tm_mon + 1, time.tm_mday, time.tm_year % 100);
> > val = time.tm_year; /* 100 years */
> >
>
>
> Justin P. Mattock
>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
