From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: CONFIG_RTC_HCTOSYS lost on x86 with ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK changes?
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:03:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51798BF4.5020602@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130425183301.GA31863@obsidianresearch.com>
On 04/25/2013 11:33 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> John mentioned they might be kept for embedded - eg size reduction.
> The issue with that idea is if you do not enable the class RTC
> subsystem then there is no way for a small embedded userspace to set
> the RTC. The /dev/rtc* device obviously goes away, but it also turns
> out that that CONFIG_GENERIC_CMOS_UPDATE only works when combined with
> a heavy weight userspace NTPD that runs the kernel PLL properly. The
> kernel NTP code is enormously conservative and it is actually quite
> hard to get it to write to the RTC. An RTC that cannot be set is
> useless, so these days I feel CONFIG_RTC is pragmatically mandatory -
> and my space constrained embedded systems do set it, for these
> reasons.
So I mentioned that the size-reduciton focused folks might not like the
generic rtc core over the persistent_clock code, but I'm not convinced
that's a reason to keep the persistent clock code (which isn't trivial
size-wise itself). Instead either we can shrink the rtc core for those
restricted uses or let them compile out the rtc core all together and
let them manage time initialization completely in userland.
I only noted it, because it has come up prior as a complaint when
switching to the RTC core was proposed.
thanks
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-25 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-24 1:34 CONFIG_RTC_HCTOSYS lost on x86 with ALWAYS_USE_PERSISTENT_CLOCK changes? Kay Sievers
2013-04-24 2:43 ` John Stultz
2013-04-24 3:05 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-24 3:19 ` John Stultz
2013-04-24 3:33 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-24 3:51 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-24 16:33 ` John Stultz
2013-04-24 16:30 ` John Stultz
2013-04-24 16:51 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-24 5:12 ` Alexander Holler
2013-04-24 16:07 ` John Stultz
2013-04-24 16:32 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-24 16:42 ` John Stultz
2013-04-25 7:11 ` Alexander Holler
2013-04-25 16:01 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-25 16:13 ` John Stultz
2013-04-25 18:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-04-25 19:45 ` Kay Sievers
2013-04-25 19:54 ` John Stultz
2013-04-25 20:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-04-25 20:03 ` John Stultz [this message]
2013-04-25 21:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51798BF4.5020602@linaro.org \
--to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=holler@ahsoftware.de \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=kay@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox