* David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:

quoted text
> On Saturday 02 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.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
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/