On 13/03/2024 14:06:42+0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > If you're asking why patch 7/7 in Peter's series exists to expose the > virtio clock through RTC, and you're not particularly interested in the > first six, I suppose that's a fair question. As is the question of "why > is it called virtio_rtc not virtio_ptp?". > Exactly my question, thanks :) > But let me turn it around: if the kernel has access to this virtio > device and *not* any other RTC, why *wouldn't* the kernel use the time > from it? The fact that it can optionally *also* provide paired readings > with the CPU counter doesn't actually *hurt* for the RTC use case, does > it? As long as it doesn't behave differently from the other RTC, I'm fine with this. This is important because I don't want to carry any special infrastructure for this driver or to have to special case this driver later on because it is incompatible with some evolution of the subsystem. -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
