On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 06:10:30PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > One usefull addition for my needs and with a m41t81 is the support of
> > the calibration of the rtc. However this can perhaps be hidden in the
> > .set_mmss function.
>
> Doesn't seem like an set_mmss() mechanism at all. Some
On Sunday 07 January 2007 2:14 am, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:49:00PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Those rtc's actually have a 1/100th of second
> > > register. Should the generic rtc interface not support that?
> >
> > Are you implying a new userspace API, or
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Author: Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [PATCH] RTC: Remove RTC UIP synchronization on x86
>
> Reading the CMOS clock on x86 and some other arches currently takes up to
> one
> second because it synchronizes with the CMOS second tic
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:49:00PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > Those rtc's actually have a 1/100th of second
> > register. Should the generic rtc interface not support that?
>
> Are you implying a new userspace API, or just an in-kernel update?
>
> Either way, that raises the question o
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:52:43PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 3:26 pm, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:49:00PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > Those rtc's actually have a 1/100th of second
> > > > register. Should the generic rt
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Hmm ... "looping" fights against "quickly"; as would "wait for next
> > > update IRQ" (on RTCs that support that). But it would improve precision,
> > > at least in the sense of having the system clock and that RTC spending
> > > less time with the l
> > Hmm ... "looping" fights against "quickly"; as would "wait for next
> > update IRQ" (on RTCs that support that). But it would improve precision,
> > at least in the sense of having the system clock and that RTC spending
> > less time with the lowest "seconds" digit disagreeing.
> >
> > This i
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 3:26 pm, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
>
> > The way it is done currently
> > in drivers/rtc/hctosys.c is 0.5 sec off. We could obtain a much better
> > precision by looping there until the next change (next second for old
> >
On Saturday 06 January 2007 3:26 pm, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:49:00PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Those rtc's actually have a 1/100th of second
> > > register. Should the generic rtc interface not support that?
> >
> > Are you implying a new userspace API, o
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:49:00PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > Those rtc's actually have a 1/100th of second
> > register. Should the generic rtc interface not support that?
>
> Are you implying a new userspace API, or just an in-kernel update?
My only concern at the moment is initializ
> Those rtc's actually have a 1/100th of second
> register. Should the generic rtc interface not support that?
Are you implying a new userspace API, or just an in-kernel update?
Either way, that raises the question of what other features should
be included. What sub-second precision? Mul
Hi all,
A comment in driver/rtc/hctosys says :
/* IMPORTANT: the RTC only stores whole seconds. It is arbitrary
* whether it stores the most close value or the value with partial
* seconds truncated. However, it is important that we use it to store
* the truncated value. This i
12 matches
Mail list logo
