From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753870AbYLIMnl (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:43:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751564AbYLIMnd (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:43:33 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:47317 "EHLO gprs189-60.eurotel.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751518AbYLIMnc (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:43:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:43:21 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com Cc: Jonathan Corbet , kernel list , dl9pf@gmx.de, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Document sysfs interface to RTC system wakeup Message-ID: <20081209124320.GC1547@ucw.cz> References: <20081126161524.GD1983@elf.ucw.cz> <20081126095610.13195e15@bike.lwn.net> <20081126170032.GE10157@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 2008-11-28 16:40:35, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:15:24 +0100 > >> Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > >> > +How to use /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/wakealarm > >> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > +This file takes the seconds since epoch to enable a wake event at the > >> > +specified time. > >> > >> More documentation is cool. In this case, though, I'm left with an > >> immediate question: *why* am I interested in wakealarm? Reading > >> through, I eventually figure out that it can maybe be used to get a > >> system to start up at some point in the future, maybe. It seems like > >> that should be said at the outset. > > > > You can suspend/power down your machine, and it will power itself up > > at appropriate time. > > > >> Also; why do I want to migrate from /proc/acpi/alarm? > > > > Because /proc/acpi/alarm is ugly hack that is going to go away :-). > > And these are the statements that (in slightly more polished terms) > should be in your doc ;-), in order to address Jonathan's quite > reasonable questions. I'm bad at polishing, but I'll add short explanation. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html