From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0.towertech.it (mx0.towertech.it [213.215.222.73]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 32A78DDF68 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:06:09 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:05:56 +0100 From: Alessandro Zummo To: David Brownell Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rtc: add rtc_systohc for ntp use Message-ID: <20081111000556.0ae8323c@i1501.lan.towertech.it> In-Reply-To: <200811101457.29051.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <20081110154026.21405.47457.stgit@i1501.lan.towertech.it> <200811101457.29051.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mundt , David Woodhouse , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:57:28 -0800 David Brownell wrote: > Yeah, we should have one of these. :) :) great! now let's see if we can get others to agree! > A better default might be to update all the RTCs on the system. > > I'm thinking of my trusty test-case here: rtc0 is highly functional > (including wake from RTC alarm) but not battery backed, while rtc1 > is battery backed but only tracks time. NTP really needs to update > both of them ... rtc0 since that's what's used most of the time, > and also rtc1 since that's what actually *stores* the time during > power off cycles. well, let's start with one... we all lived with one rtc until a couple of year ago :) > > +static int rtc_systohc(struct rtc_time *tm) > > I think "static" will lose, especially since ... wooops! -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it