From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bp@alien8.de (Borislav Petkov) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:12:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V15 03/11] cper: add timestamp print to CPER status printing In-Reply-To: References: <1492556723-9189-1-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <1492556723-9189-4-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <20170421122150.76cce2cfrt767glv@pd.tnic> <35cc4ae0-e8fa-fd3a-5d7f-243ed2e82ea0@codeaurora.org> <20170421172603.4574wonnm5tgvbcn@pd.tnic> Message-ID: <20170421181221.4qqfprbyljgv4ekb@pd.tnic> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:08:43PM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote: > The timestamp may still be useful when it is imprecise. In the polling case, > you may only poll every minute or so, so the time may be useful. Well, what is in the timestamp when !precise? Some random time or some timestamp from a couple of seconds ago? How do you differentiate what timestamp is bollocks and what is from a while ago? Is the imprecise tstamp really close to the time the error happened or pointing at 1970 - the beginning of unix time? :-) I'm sure you've picked up by now that we don't trust the firmware one bit. > Also, I imagine there could be interrupt based errors happening much faster than the > FW/OS handshake can happen. Maybe we can just use what I had before but also > specify imprecise so that it is clear: > > printk("%s%ststamp: %02d%02d-%02d-%02d %02d:%02d:%02d\n", pfx, > (timestamp[3] & 0x1 ? "precise " : "imprecise "), > century, year, mon, day, hour, min, sec); I guess. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.