[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200705271836.55800.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 18:36:51 -0700
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RTC_DRV_CMOS can break userspace interface
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists