[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080725144946.5e1b78c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:49:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.26-git] pm selftest: rtc paranoia
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:26:51 -0700
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> From: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
>
> Cope with a quirk of some RTCs (notably ACPI ones) which
> aren't guaranteed to implement oneshot behavior when they
> woke the system from sleeep: forcibly disable the alarm,
> just in case.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> ---
> kernel/power/main.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/kernel/power/main.c 2008-07-22 16:38:32.000000000 -0700
> +++ b/kernel/power/main.c 2008-07-22 16:39:15.000000000 -0700
> @@ -635,6 +635,13 @@ static void __init test_wakealarm(struct
> }
> if (status < 0)
> printk(err_suspend, status);
> +
> + /* Some platforms can't detect that the alarm triggered the
> + * wakeup, or (accordingly) disable it after it afterwards.
> + * It's supposed to give oneshot behavior; cope.
> + */
> + alm.enabled = false;
> + rtc_set_alarm(rtc, &alm);
> }
>
> static int __init has_wakealarm(struct device *dev, void *name_ptr)
I assume this fixes some reported bug? Any references?
Is this needed in 2.6.26.x? 2.6.25.x?
--
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