On 21.06.24 10:45, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 17:19 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>>
+
+ /* Counter frequency, and error margin. Units of (second >> 64) */
+ uint64_t counter_period_frac_sec;
>>>
>>> AFAIU this might limit the precision in case of
On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 14:37 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> Should implement .gettimex64 instead.
Thanks. This look sane?
As noted in the code comment, in the *ideal* case we just build all
three pre/post/device timestamps from the very same counter read. So
sts->pre_ts == sts->post_ts.
In the less
On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 17:19 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + /* Counter frequency, and error margin. Units of (second >> 64) */
> > > + uint64_t counter_period_frac_sec;
> >
> > AFAIU this might limit the precision in case of high counter frequencies.
> > Could the
On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 14:37 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> Changing virtio-dev address to the new one. The discussion might also be
> relevant for virtio-comment, but it is discouraged to forward it to both.
I will happily take it to whichever forum you think is most
appropriate. (And you have my pe
Changing virtio-dev address to the new one. The discussion might also be
relevant for virtio-comment, but it is discouraged to forward it to both.
On 15.06.24 10:40, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:38 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> RFC v3 updates
>> --
>>
>> This serie
On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:38 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> RFC v3 updates
> --
>
> This series implements a driver for a virtio-rtc device conforming to spec
> RFC v3 [1]. It now includes an RTC class driver with alarm, in addition to
> the PTP clock driver already present before.
>
> T
On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 14:47 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> 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
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
> wrote:
>>> To a certain extent, as long as the virtio-rtc de
On 14 March 2024 11:13:37 CET, Peter Hilber
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...we
Now CC'ing the previous commenters to the virtio-rtc spec draft, since
this discussion is mostly about the spec, and the Virtio mailing lists
still seem to be in a migration hiatus...
On 13.03.24 19:18, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On 13 March 2024 17:50:48 GMT, Peter Hilber
> wrote:
>> On 13.03.24
On 13.03.24 21:12, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> As long as it doesn't behave differently from the other RTC, I'm fine
>> with this. This is important because I don't want to carry any special
>> infrastructure for this driver or to have to special case this driver
>> later on because it is incompatible wi
> As long as it doesn't behave differently from the other RTC, I'm fine
> with this. This is important because I don't want to carry any special
> infrastructure for this driver or to have to special case this driver
> later on because it is incompatible with some evolution of the
> subsystem.
May
On 13 March 2024 17:50:48 GMT, Peter Hilber
wrote:
>On 13.03.24 13:45, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> Surely the whole point of this effort is to provide guests with precise
>> and *unambiguous* knowledge of what the time is?
>
>I would say, a fundamental point of this effort is to enable such
>imple
On 13.03.24 15:06, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 13:58 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> The TSC or whatever CPU counter/clock that is used to keep the system
>> time is not an RTC, I don't get why it has to be exposed as such to the
>> guests. PTP is fine and precise, RTC is not.
On 13.03.24 13:45, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 10:45 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> On 12.03.24 18:15, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 19:24 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
On 08.03.24 13:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Hi
On 13/03/2024 14:06:42+, David Woodhouse wrote:
> If you're asking why patch 7/7 in Peter's series exists to expose the
> virtio clock through RTC, and you're not particularly interested in the
> first six, I suppose that's a fair question. As is the question of "why
> is it called virtio_rtc n
On 13.03.24 12:18, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 13/03/2024 10:45:54+0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
>>> Exposing UTC as the only clock reference is bad enough; when leap
>>> seconds happen there's a whole second during which you don't *know*
>>> which second it is. It seems odd to me, for a precision cl
On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 13:58 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> The TSC or whatever CPU counter/clock that is used to keep the system
> time is not an RTC, I don't get why it has to be exposed as such to the
> guests. PTP is fine and precise, RTC is not.
Ah, I see. But the point of the virtio_rtc is
On 13/03/2024 12:29:38+, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 12:18 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> >
> > I still don't know anything about virtio but under Linux, an RTC is
> > always UTC (or localtime when dual booting but let's not care) and never
> > accounts for leap seconds.
On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 10:45 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 12.03.24 18:15, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 19:24 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> > > On 08.03.24 13:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> > > > > On 07.03.24 15:02, D
On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 12:18 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>
> I still don't know anything about virtio but under Linux, an RTC is
> always UTC (or localtime when dual booting but let's not care) and never
> accounts for leap seconds. Having an RTC and RTC driver behaving
> differently would be s
On 13/03/2024 10:45:54+0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> > Exposing UTC as the only clock reference is bad enough; when leap
> > seconds happen there's a whole second during which you don't *know*
> > which second it is. It seems odd to me, for a precision clock to be
> > deliberately ambiguous about wha
On 12.03.24 18:15, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 19:24 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> On 08.03.24 13:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
On 07.03.24 15:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Hm, should we allow UTC? If you tell me the
On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 19:24 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 08.03.24 13:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> > > On 07.03.24 15:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > Hm, should we allow UTC? If you tell me the time in UTC, then
> > > > (sometimes) I s
On 08.03.24 13:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> On 07.03.24 15:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:38 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
RFC v3 updates
--
This series implements a driver for a virtio-r
On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 07.03.24 15:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:38 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> > > RFC v3 updates
> > > --
> > >
> > > This series implements a driver for a virtio-rtc device conforming to spec
> > > RFC v
On 07.03.24 15:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:38 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> RFC v3 updates
>> --
>>
>> This series implements a driver for a virtio-rtc device conforming to spec
>> RFC v3 [1]. It now includes an RTC class driver with alarm, in addition to
>> th
On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:38 +0100, Peter Hilber wrote:
> RFC v3 updates
> --
>
> This series implements a driver for a virtio-rtc device conforming to spec
> RFC v3 [1]. It now includes an RTC class driver with alarm, in addition to
> the PTP clock driver already present before.
>
> T
28 matches
Mail list logo
