Hi Alexandre, On 26.09.2022 11:23:13, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Alexandre, > Hello Sascha, > > On 21.09.22 15:35, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 04:22:09PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 21/09/2022 15:17:53+0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >>> Hi Alexandre, > >>> > >>> Any input to this series? > >> > >> I'm not convinced this is necessary. Having an invalid alarm doesn't > >> mean that the time is invalid and that check will only ever happen at > >> boot time whereas V2F is a reliable indication that the time is invalid. > >> > >> Have you really had an RTC with an invalid time that is not caught by > >> rtc_valid_tm and with V2F not set? > > > > I don't know. I must talk to Ahmad in this regard, he'll be back next > > week. It could be that we only created this patch to be sure the RTC > > state is sane. > > The kernel message > > rtc rtc0: invalid alarm value: 2020-3-27 7:82:0 > > listed in the commit message is something I actually ran into. There > was no v2f set then. The customer has also variously observed bit flips > independently of v2f: During EMC testing, electrostatic discharge at developer > desks and even in the field: Suspected causes were lightning strikes in the > vicinity and the switching of larger inductive loads. > They're very paranoid of logging invalid timestamps, so we'll keep the patch > anyhow at our side, but I think it is generally useful as well: If we can't > set an invalid alarm time by normal means, but read back an invalid time, > something may have corrupted other memory, so treating it as a v2f is sensible. Should we re-send the patch with an updated patch description, or do you take it as is? regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
