Am Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:59:08 +0100 schrieb Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 06/11/2020 08:40:34+0100, Henning Schild wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am Thu, 5 Nov 2020 23:14:51 +0100 > > schrieb Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > Hello Claudius! > > > > > > It has been a while ;) > > > > > > On 04/11/2020 11:26:27+0100, Claudius Heine wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > this patch introduces I2C support to the RX6110 RTC driver and > > > > also adds an ACPI identifier to it. > > > > > > > > Since we are also pushing the coreboot changes for the ACPI > > > > table upstream in parallel, we are free to name this ACPI entry > > > > however we like it seems. So any feedback on that would be > > > > welcome ;) > > > > > > I don't care too much about ACPI so if you are really looking for > > > advice there, I guess you should ask seom of the ACPI guys (but I > > > guess you are free to choose whatever you want). > > > > > > > This is the coreboot stuff currently under review. > > > > https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/47235 > > > > I can't really comment on the patch, however another part is worrying: > if VLF is set, coreboot is resetting the time to a valid value (user > defined or the build date). This is nasty because this hides the event > from the kernel and ulimately, userspace has no way of knowing whether > the RTC date is the real date or just a dummy date. Is that worrying problem part of the patch, or just a general observation looking at their driver? I think in the patches we should focus on whether I2C and ACPI support should be added, and how. Henning
