Reminds me of the nvram-wakeup lotto back in the day.
Am 16. April 2023 19:54:03 MESZ schrieb "Marko Mäkelä" <marko.mak...@iki.fi>:
>Today, I tested rtcwake on several x86 or x86-64 based computers.
>
>The outcome:
>
>(1) Suspend to RAM (say, "rtcwake -m mem -s 10"):
>* Success: Every system.
>(2) Wake-on-timer ("rtcwake -m no -s 120 && shutdown -h now" or "rtcwake -m
>off -s 120"):
>* Success: Lenovo Thinkpad X220 (2012?), and a 5-year-old desktop system
>* Fail: IBM Thinkpad X60 (Core Duo from 2006), a HP Zbook from 2016.
>(3) Suspend to disk ("rtcwake -m disk -s 120") had no chance of working,
>because I never configure any swap partition. I would assume that this could
>only work if (2) worked in the first place. On the Debian systems that I
>tried, the command would fail as expected. On one Arch Linux system (Lenovo
>Thinkpad X220), it forcibly power off the computer and fail to start
>automatically; a file system check ran on the manual power-on.
>
>GNU/Linux is the only operating system on each computer, and apart from the
>32-bit Thinkpad X60, everything boots up via UEFI.
>
>In the BIOS setup of both the Thinkpad X60 and the HP laptop there are some
>settings related to powering up on timer. Maybe with something like
>nvram-wakeup (which was the only working option for a 2001 Intel Celeron
>machine) they could be made to work.
>
>Moral of the story: You can't expect wake-on-timer to "just work" even on
>relatively recent hardware. Possibly the chances are better with desktop or
>small-form-factor systems than with laptops.
>
> Marko
>
>_______________________________________________
>vdr mailing list
>vdr@linuxtv.org
>https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
