Re: [PATCH 0/4] rtc/scmi: Support multiple RTCs

[Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>]

On 13/02/2025 18:52:57+0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:20:32AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> >On 13/02/2025 11:30:33+0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> >> IIUC on any pure DT based system, a device node exists per RTC and hence
> >> >> platform device associated with it. And the RTC devices are created with
> >> >> parent pointing to unique platform device.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > However i.MX SCMI BBM exports two RTCs(id: 0, id: 1), so to make it work for
> >> >> > current RTC framework, we could only pick one RTC and pass the id to BBM
> >> >> > server side.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am not sure whether Alexandre wanna me to update the code following each
> >> >> > parent could only support one RTC or else.
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I want you to keep your changes local to your driver. I already stated
> >> >back in 2018 that you were on your own with the imx-sc driver and that I
> >> >don't like seeing multiple abstractions for existing RTCs. What is the
> >> >actual use case behind needing to access both RTCs using Linux?
> >> >Shouldn't this be handled on your firmware side?
> >> 
> >> The firmware exports two RTCs, RTC0 could be handled by Linux, RTC1
> >> could only be read by Linux and configuable by M7 per current i.MX95 EVK
> >> firmware.
> >
> >This doesn't answer the main question, why is this useful? Where is the
> >time of RTC1 coming from and why would linux set a different time on
> >RTC0 ? Can't the firwmare just set the same time on both RTC0 and RTC1?
> 
> To current i.MX95 EVK SCMI firmware, RTC0 is SoC internal RTC, RTC1 is
> board level RTC which is more acurrate.
> 
> There are safety island in i.MX95, M7 safety core is assigned owner of
> RTC1. Linux non-safety is assigned owner of RTC0, but Linux could read RTC1
> time, Linux not able to set alarm of RTC1.
> 
> I need ask firmware developer to see whether RTC1 time could be synced to
> RTC0 from firmware level. But considering RTC1 is more accurate, should we
> use RTC1?
> 
> The current firmware design is RTC0 is always there and exported, because
> it is SoC internal RTC. RTC1 is board level one, it could be optional per
> board design and firmware design.
> 
> The firmware could update to only export RTC1 if no safety need it,
> but this needs big change to the firmware BBM part, I need check with
> firmware developer. But things may not change.
> 
> >What would someone do if RTC0 and RTC1 don't agree on the time?
> 
> RTC1 is more accurate if it is there.
> 

Well, yes, you have your answer here, if the firmware knows RTC1 is more
accurate and will be your source of truth, then simply use this one.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com