[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbe470eaeeb17624444b37dbe35b0883193e475b.camel@toradex.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:06:28 +0000
From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>
To: "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
CC: "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-imx@....com" <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: [REGRESSION] rtc: imx-sc: remove .read_alarm
Hi Alexandre
Were you aware that this breaks the sysfs use case? E.g. before we were able to suspend and resume 10 seconds
later as follows:
echo +10 > /sys/class/rtc/rtc1/wakealarm; echo mem > /sys/power/state
Since the removal of .read_alarm in commit 7942121b8ca0 ("rtc: imx-sc: remove .read_alarm") this no longer
seems to work.
This seems like a regression or is this not supposed to work?
Thanks for clarifying.
Cheers
Marcel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists