122213 – BIOS wake-up alarm doesn't work with suspend2-sources-2.6.14-r7

Something has changed with my BIOS wake-up alarm. It was set to wake everyday at 3:00 am, cron would run backups, and then suspend to S5 again. Worked that way for well over a year, though several kernel upgrades. But when I switched to suspend2-sources and specifically suspend2-sources-2.6.14-r7, it stopped working.

My BIOS alarm has 3 fields: day, hour, and minute. I have it set to "day = 0, 10:45 am" (UTC), where day = 0 means "everyday". /proc/acpi/alarm shows "2006-01-00 10:45:00" (year, month, and seconds are filled in by the kernel, year and month are from today's date).

I tried several things to understand the problem:

    * I can write timestamps into /proc/acpi/alarm. When I read them back,
      they are the same (day, hours, and minute, that is).
    * I write a timestamp into /proc/acpi/alarm with day = 0, and the
      system won't wake.
    * I configure the alarm in the BIOS with day = 0 and then power off.
      It won't wake.
    * I write a timestamp into /proc/acpi/alarm with a non-zero day, and
      the system wakes when it's supposed to. After waking, the day has
      been cleared to 0.
    * I write a timestamp two days in the future and suspend. I resume
      the next day, and the day has been cleared to zero.
    * Write a non-zero day, suspend to S5, power on and go to BIOS config
      to see what's in there. The BIOS has day = 0. Don't change it and
      power off. Result: system won't wake.

More system details:
  MB is: DFI PS83-BL
  BIOS is: Award 02/16/2004-I865P/PE-6A79AD4DC-00 (updated Sept 2004)
  Flash type is: Winbond 49V002F/3.3V

This is definitely not as good as before. When day = 0 meant "every day", my system could be unplugged for several days, and it would always wake at 3 am the day after power was restored. And it never forgot to wake up.

What has changed? And why, if I remove all power to the machine and then configure the BIOS alarm directly, the system still won't wake up?

And most importantly, is this a bug or a feature?