From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: "aliguori@us.ibm.com" <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>,
"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] RTC: New logic to emulate RTC
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:43:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F45EE2E.2050207@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A9667DDFB95DB7438FA9D7D576C3D87E07946F@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 02/23/2012 02:49 AM, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>> Currently they hang very early because UF is not set. I
>> attempted to fix that, but ran into other problems. UIP seems
>> not to be really in sync with the update interrupt, because the
>> 500 ms update tests pass when testing UIP, but not when testing
>> UF. (Another reason why I wanted to have the 500 ms rule: it
>> improves reliability of tests!)
>
> The current logic is not correct: It check the UIP with rtc clock and
> use a timer to set UF bit. Since the delay of the timer, those two do
> not in sync in some cases. Now, I separate UF logic from update
> interrupt. And base it on UIP. With this changed, it works.
I'm not sure I understand, UIP and UF are indeed the same logic (UIP is
1 between the rising and falling edge; UF becomes 1 on the falling
edge), but they are also the same thing as the interrupt. UIE only says
whether an interrupt is raised on the rising edge of UF.
So, merging the handling of UF and UIP makes sense, but separating the
two from the interrupt seems wrong.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-23 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-20 0:24 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] RTC: New logic to emulate RTC Zhang, Yang Z
2012-02-20 7:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-02-21 0:00 ` Zhang, Yang Z
2012-02-22 11:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-02-23 1:49 ` Zhang, Yang Z
2012-02-23 6:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-02-23 7:43 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2012-02-24 0:55 ` Zhang, Yang Z
2012-02-24 6:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=4F45EE2E.2050207@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@web.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=yang.z.zhang@intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).