On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Richard Cochran wrote: > From my point of view, the discussion is going round in circles. There Sorry for coming late and adding more to the general confusion. :) > seems to be agreement that supporting PTP hardware clocks is a good > idea. The objections seem to be about the form of the API. In general, > there are three avenues. > > 1. character device (like hpet) > 2. posix clock api > 3. sysfs > > Or possibly some combination of the three. I fail to see the requirement for any of those. Either the hardware clock is suitable as a clocksource for general consumption, then it should just be used as a clock source. If it's not - e.g. because it's too slow to access - then it just should serve as a reference in the NTP style and steer the timekeeping into sync. As I said in the other reply, I know that you want a global synchronized clock aside of CLOCK_REALTIME, but that's an easy to solve problem. See my other reply for details. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
