On 02/23/2013 06:11 PM, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > On 22/feb/2013, at 22:05, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 02/22/2013 12:55 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>> On 02/22/2013 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>>> On 02/14/2013 09:02 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>>> /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/date and /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/time currently have >>>>> read-only access. This patch introduces write functionality which will >>>>> set the rtc time. >>>>> >>>>> Usage: echo YYYY-MM-DD > /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/date >>>>> echo HH:MM:SS > /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/time >>>> Why do we want to add a new interface here? >>> John, >>> >>> I'm not adding a new interface. The current date/time interface only handles >>> read and I'm introducing write. >>> >> >> Right, but what benefit does that provide? >> (I'm not saying there isn't any, its just not clear from your patch why this is a good thing.) >> Sorry John, I misunderstood your question. >> Also CC'ing Alessandro for his input. > > I'd like to keep the interfaces as simple as possible but I'm open to improvements if there are good use cases. > AFAICT there is no way for me to "test" or use the write from userspace. hwclock uses the SET_TIME ioctl, which is a different code path AFAICT. I'd like to be at least able to test this stuff when we make changes to it so I think having write functionality for date & time is worthwhile. For me, I'm using these to heavily test ntp and ntpdate over system reboots. OOC, Alessandro, why is the date & time split into two fields? P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
