While the virtio-comment list is not available, now also CC'ing Parav, which may be interested in this virtio-rtc spec related discussion thread.
On 14.03.24 15:19, David Woodhouse wrote: > On 14 March 2024 11:13:37 CET, Peter Hilber <peter.hil...@opensynergy.com> > wrote: >>> To a certain extent, as long as the virtio-rtc device is designed to expose >>> time precisely and unambiguously, it's less important if the Linux kernel >>> *today* can use that. Although of course we should strive for that. Let's >>> be...well, *unambiguous*, I suppose... that we've changed topics to discuss >>> that though. >>> >> >> As Virtio is extensible (unlike hardware), my approach is to mostly specify >> only what also has a PoC user and a use case. > > If we get memory-mapped (X, Y, Z, ±x, ±y) I'll have a user and a use case on > day one. Otherwise, as I said in my first response, I can go do that as a > separate device and decide that virtio_rtc doesn't meet our needs (especially > for maintaining accuracy over LM). We plan to add - leap second indication, - UTC-to-TAI offset, - clock smearing indication (including the noon-to-noon linear smearing variant which seems to be somewhat popular), and - clock accuracy indication to the initial spec and to the PoC implementation. However, due to resource restrictions, we cannot ourselves add the memory-mapped clock to the initial spec. Everyone is very welcome to contribute the memory-mapped clock to the spec, and I think it might then still make it to the initial version. > > My main concern for virto_rtc is that we avoid *ambiguity*. Yes, I get that > it's extensible but we don't want a v1.0 of the spec, implemented by various > hypervisors, which still leaves guests not knowing what the actual time is. > That would not be good. And even UTC without a leap second indicator has that > problem. Agreed. That should be addressed by the above changes. Best regards, Peter
