On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jun Sun wrote:
> > Well, rtc_set_time() is only used by the timekeeping code, so I see no
> > problem with renaming it. And the interface remains the same -- it's a
> > number of seconds. So if a full update is faster than changing minutes
> > and seconds only (e.g. the RTC is a monotonic counter -- I know a system
> > that just counts 10 ms intervals), an implementation is free to do so
> > (although that enforces UTC to be kept in the RTC; a good thing anyway),
> > but it shouldn't be required to. And I think the name should be changed
> > to reflect that.
> Actually the drivers/char/mips-rtc.c uses it too. In that context
> a full rtc set is needed.
> The same interface can be used for the 2.6 gen-rtc.c as well, where
> a full rtc update is needed also.
But that function should be provided by the driver (it may use
system-specific backends at will -- drivers/char/rtc.c does so as well),
with all that fancy stuff about epoch and century handling.
> I like the current way it is because :
> 1) rtc_set_time() is a more generic interface so that it can be used
> in more places (such as mips-rtc.c and gen-rtc.c).
I see no problem with that interface being used there.
> 2) rtc_set_mmss() can be reasonally emulated if it is desired on a particular
I don't think so -- it would incur a race and a severe performance hit.
It makes no sense anyway.
> 3) it is better to have just one rtc_set_xxx() instead of two.
Please define "better". I think it's better to have a fast variation for
timekeeping as it's been used for years now for MC146818 and clones.
> > Well, time_status = STA_UNSYNC initially, but ntpd will reset that.
> > Which is of course required to become a server.
> Actually searching through the kernel I can't find the place where
> the flag is cleared. Am I mistaken?
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+ e-mail: email@example.com, PGP key available +