From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6296433985; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 08:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.216 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764577897; cv=none; b=ebj2D6czZxOy0oXoMdrmwD0YvCRzSKNfhIBNp8iGzEaFgUnktR4SwNaSTvKlu2VGBwJ1/HJ0zEE8cJYhBy4hwTFOPMK+mvHFYAYjaU+ydZCCA6CzRslmm3hQk1HZjhf7AWhcpp5XSWt1GnuHGoGlXZMMkFHz+bxioH6IYlyPrVA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764577897; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vMqGvNboBBXSS8uY1TjtE7V3YvfgNXOsABIPU5fXf1U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Fxjh9PwLflYhm6ab+lr8k+Ye9ZPg+UfU7BmNoe8zo5c5XCyvTooyrp6WvKCGl7zvh1yWAlzHKZgQPOzNdfzFq22uvsAj3NLAIwEnWPrZflOhb7dXeuIdXRG2Aan5Jza0gxtHBt2AvI7oOVJxIvUI+9eQlQVo5YD+sgReG2SvrcM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=VHRIP3Va; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.216 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="VHRIP3Va" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=e+5glRbyh0Qf7t2E3ghkZkSak91rQ0ocUQNnzE3DWTs=; b=VHRIP3VaNwCh2tYlW6dFMzGABtIqp/6KX/82pWbOnT6eNeURerH/ETjZ7JLKGDqItqhQfZ2bD lMO6olMXPjw+LZfLkQIHxcBrE5583Gs7+p/tJu2zCzbChFSYtkMIPspZ9JfrNNljUGb6KgJO5+x StZZLr8Gk4OyYAfLEzdOkU8= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dKcWz4l7Cz1T4GL; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 16:29:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemr200006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.167]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 598B2180478; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 16:31:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.110.145] (10.67.110.145) by dggpemr200006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.167) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 16:31:24 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 16:31:24 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: breakpoints: check RTC wakeup alarm support before test To: Shuah Khan , Shuah Khan CC: Moon Hee Lee , , , , , References: <20251112061532.2867859-1-zhengxinyu6@huawei.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Xinyu Zheng In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To dggpemr200006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.167) On 11/20/2025 6:15 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 11/11/25 23:15, Xinyu Zheng wrote: >> If RTC wakeup alarm feature is unsupported, this testcase may cause > > It may cause infinite suspend? Doesn't sound definitive.> infinite > suspend if there is no other wakeup source. To solve this >> problem, set wakeup alarm up before we trigger suspend. In this case, >> we can test if RTC support RTC_FEATURE_ALARM and efi_set_alarm function. >> > > For a "may cause" problem, this change> Signed-off-by: Xinyu Zheng > >> --->   .../breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c     | 23 ++++++++++++ >> +++++++ >>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/ >> step_after_suspend_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/ >> step_after_suspend_test.c >> index 8d233ac95696..e738af896ce1 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c >> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ >>   #include >>   #include >>   #include >> +#include >> +#include >>   #include >>   #include >>   #include >> @@ -159,10 +161,30 @@ void suspend(void) >>       int count_before; >>       int count_after; >>       struct itimerspec spec = {}; >> +    char *rtc_file = "/dev/rtc0"; >> +    int rtc_fd; >> +    struct rtc_wkalrm alarm = { 0 }; >> +    time_t secs; >>       if (getuid() != 0) >>           ksft_exit_skip("Please run the test as root - Exiting.\n"); >> +    rtc_fd = open(rtc_file, O_RDONLY); >> +    if (rtc_fd < 0) >> +        ksft_exit_fail_msg("open rtc0 failed\n"); >> + >> +    err = ioctl(rtc_fd, RTC_RD_TIME, &alarm.time); >> +    if (err < 0) >> +        ksft_exit_fail_msg("get rtc time failed\n"); >> + >> +    secs = timegm((struct tm *)&alarm.time) + 3; >> +    gmtime_r(&secs, (struct tm *)&alarm.time); >> +    alarm.enabled = 1; >> + >> +    err = ioctl(rtc_fd, RTC_WKALM_SET, &alarm); >> +    if (err < 0) >> +        ksft_exit_fail_msg("set wake alarm test failed, errno %d\n", >> errno); > > Essentially with this change the test doesn't run unless > RTC wake is supported. That sounds restrictive - is there > another way do do this? Hi, Shuah. If RTC wake is a must in this testcase? In my test, when EFI report supporting EFI_RT_SUPPORTED_SET_WAKEUP_TIME. There will be a alarmtimer.0.auto under /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/，while suspending, I found alarmtimer will also been suspended and pass the wakeup job to RTC. When RTC calls efi_set_alarm(), this function returns EFI_UNSUPPORTED then suspend fails. When EFI doesn't report supporting EFI_RT_SUPPORTED_SET_WAKEUP_TIME, there is no /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/alarmtimer.0.auto and alarmtimer is not a suspend target. Then suspend success, but never wakeup. > >> + >>       timerfd = timerfd_create(CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM, 0); >>       if (timerfd < 0) >>           ksft_exit_fail_msg("timerfd_create() failed\n"); >> @@ -180,6 +202,7 @@ void suspend(void) >>       if (count_after <= count_before) >>           ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to enter Suspend state\n"); >> +    close(rtc_fd); >>       close(timerfd); >>   } >> > thanks, > -- Shuah -- Xinyu Zheng