[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080203050537.GA18942@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 06:05:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] sleepy linux self-test
* David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Saturday 02 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> 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
--
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