On 06/14/2011 01:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
cool..
>
>> 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
