From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 3/6] [-mm]: ACPI: duplicate ACPI sleep "alarm" attribute in sysfs Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:36:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20070108113612.GC25857@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1168083318.5619.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070107111859.GB4792@ucw.cz> <200701071944.59470.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701071944.59470.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Alessandro Zummo , "linux-acpi@vger" , Zhang Rui , Paul Sokolovsky List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > Create /sys/power/alarm. > > > The way it works is exactly the same as /proc/acpi/alarm. > > > I.e. "#echo yyyy-mm-dd hh-mm-ss >/sys/power/alarm" supports existing absolute time. > > > And "#echo +yyyy-mm-dd hh-mm-ss >/sys/power/alarm" supports a duration. > > > > NAK. /proc/acpi/alarm is a mess, and this just moves it to /sysfs. > > 'One value per file', please. > > Sort of like the appended patch, instead ... which doesn't need to know a > thing about ACPI. This is what I suggested in response to an earlier patch > from Paul Sokolovsky. Yes, I suspected your patches would be solving this one. > - It can be written with an alarm time in the future, again seconds > since the POSIX epoch, which enables the alarm. > > - It can be written with an alarm time not in the future (such as 0, > the start of the POSIX epoch) to disable the alarm. ...and it is certainly way better than original (parsing) solution. ACK. (What about periodic alarms? I guess we want to simply forget about them? Doc*/ file would be nice, but you probably have that in separate patch.) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html