lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] sleepy linux self-test

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

> 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-03 06:09    [W:0.129 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site