On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:10:54AM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jun Sun wrote: > > > > Well, rtc_set_time() is only used by the timekeeping code, so I see no > > > problem with renaming it. And the interface remains the same -- it's a > > > number of seconds. So if a full update is faster than changing minutes > > > and seconds only (e.g. the RTC is a monotonic counter -- I know a system > > > that just counts 10 ms intervals), an implementation is free to do so > > > (although that enforces UTC to be kept in the RTC; a good thing anyway), > > > but it shouldn't be required to. And I think the name should be changed > > > to reflect that. > > > > Actually the drivers/char/mips-rtc.c uses it too. In that context > > a full rtc set is needed. > > > > The same interface can be used for the 2.6 gen-rtc.c as well, where > > a full rtc update is needed also. > > But that function should be provided by the driver (it may use > system-specific backends at will -- drivers/char/rtc.c does so as well), Isn't it cool to take care of the board-specific with the same interface kernel time system uses? Every MIPS board gets a basic RTC driver for free! > > I like the current way it is because : > > > > 1) rtc_set_time() is a more generic interface so that it can be used > > in more places (such as mips-rtc.c and gen-rtc.c). > > I see no problem with that interface being used there. Eh? I assume you mean "no problem with rtc_set_mmss() being used there", true? How come no problem? rtc_set_mmss() does not even allow you set the time if the new time is too off. > > > 2) rtc_set_mmss() can be reasonally emulated if it is desired on a particular > > board > > I don't think so -- it would incur a race and a severe performance hit. > It makes no sense anyway. What is the race condition? And what is the performance hit? > > 3) it is better to have just one rtc_set_xxx() instead of two. > > Please define "better". I think it's better to have a fast variation for > timekeeping as it's been used for years now for MC146818 and clones. > Oh, yeah? Look at those ugly #ifdefs include/asm-mips/mc146818rtc.h. It is a poor abstraction of RTC. If you convert DEC to the new RTC interface we could get rid of that file completely. And make no mistake, you _can_ have fast implementation that you are looking for. BTW, are you proposing to rename rtc_set_time() to rtc_set_mmss() and change its semantic accordingly? Or are you suggesting to add rtc_set_mmss()? If you are suggesting the later, clearly fewer interface functions between MIPS common and board layer is better. > > Actually searching through the kernel I can't find the place where > > the flag is cleared. Am I mistaken? > > See do_adjtimex(). > I see. Thanks. Jun
