Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/rtc: continuously read RTC in a loop for 30s
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Mateusz_Jo=c5=84czyk?= <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20220219072713.5280-1-mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <6d8f500d-0ee0-3e27-dfdf-e8c0a34880e5@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:56:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220219072713.5280-1-mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/19/22 12:27 AM, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
> Some problems with reading the RTC time may happen rarely, for example
> while the RTC is updating. So read the RTC many times to catch these
> problems. For example, a previous attempt for my
> commit ea6fa4961aab ("rtc: mc146818-lib: fix RTC presence check")
> was incorrect and would have triggered this selftest.
> 
> To avoid the risk of damaging the hardware, wait 11ms before consecutive
> reads.
> 
> In rtc_time_to_timestamp I copied values manually instead of casting -
> just to be on the safe side. The 11ms wait period was chosen so that it is
> not a divisor of 1000ms.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>
> Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>
> Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
> ---
> 
> Also, before
> commit cdedc45c579f ("rtc: cmos: avoid UIP when reading alarm time")
> reading the RTC alarm time during RTC update produced incorrect results
> on many Intel platforms. Preparing a similar selftest for this case
> would be more difficult, though, because the RTC alarm time is cached by
> the kernel. Direct access would have to be exposed somehow, for example
> in debugfs. I may prepare a patch for it in the future.
> ---

Looks good to me. We end up tweaking the timeout=210 in settings every
now and then. Not sure how we can avoid adjusting it as we find problems.

I will apply this in for Linux 5.18-rc1

thanks,
-- Shuah