>>> On 10.03.14 at 08:37, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >>> On 09.03.14 at 19:50, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 09 Mar, at 04:31:41PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 04:20:20PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We have tried to use the time functions before, with little success
>> >> > because of various bugs in the runtime implementations, e.g. see commit
>> >> > bacef661acdb ("x86-64/efi: Use EFI to deal with platform wall clock")
>> >> > and commit bd52276fa1d4 ("x86-64/efi: Use EFI to deal with platform wall
>> >> > clock (again)").
>> >>
>> >> I'd naively expected that these would be more reliable after the
>> >> 1:1 mapping patches, so it might actually be time to give them
>> >> another go.
>> >
>> > Is there any value in that? Do machines exist where we absolutely
>> > must have access to the EFI time services? Either because there's
>> > no other method or no other working one?
>>
>> Is it such a bad thing to be prepared for this sort of machine to
>> arrive even if likely there are none so far?
>
> "Be prepared for a not yet existing machine" != "time to give them
> another go on existing machines", right?
That heavily depends on the perspective you take, and I know
we tend to have disagreeing perspectives here: I think things
should be done the intended way on all systems where this is
possible. Remember the far from insignificant number of issues
with the ACPI interrupt source overrides for particularly the
timer interrupt years ago? Which wasn't a reason to stop trying
to use ACPI wherever possible, even on affected systems (by
introducing command line overrides).
Jan
--
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
