[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110222195143.GC31611@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:51:43 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc: Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <mroberto@...i.cetuc.puc-rio.br>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 04/10] RTC: Cleanup
rtc_class_ops->read_alarm()
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:35:10AM -0800, john stultz wrote:
> Yea. The way I thought about it originally was that you can set an alarm
> and that alarm will fire if the machine is on, suspended or even in some
> cases off. Then, when the machine is booted (system reset), the state
> of the RTC's alarm should not be trusted.
> Your description of the AIE/UIE having random values aligns with that
> intuition.
This seems rather worrying - it sounds like it might mean that the
device might come up firing spuriously which doesn't seem terribly
clever.
> However, if the expectation is that once set, the alarm should persist
> across any number of reboots, this makes it a bit more complicated.
For an embedded device I'd expect that either nothing about the RTC
would persist (including the time) or everything would.
--
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