Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1d8ad923707b1c6347d830088a410c31b794968c.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] rtc: rtc-cmos: Assorted ACPI-related cleanups
 and fixes
From:   Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 20:00:25 +0800
In-Reply-To: <5640233.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher>
References: <5640233.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 13:05 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This is a v2 of the series previously posted as
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/2276401.ElGaqSPkdT@kreacher/
> 
> The first three patches in the series have not changed since then (I
> have
> considered moving the last patch, which is a fix, to the front, but
> that turns
> out to be a bit cumbersome and not really worth the effort).
> 
> This series of patches does some assorted ACPI-related cleanups to
> the CMOS RTC
> driver:
> - redundant static variable is dropped,
> - code duplication is reduced,
> - code is relocated so as to drop a few unnecessary forward
> declarations of
>   functions,
> - functions are renamed to avoid confusion,
> and fixes up an issue in the driver removal path.
> 
> 
> 

Reviewed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>

And I have tested the patch series on a platform with both
use_acpi_alarm parameter set and cleared, the ACPI RTC fixed event
works as expected, for both runtime and suspend wakeups.

So
Tested-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>

thanks,
rui