Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101641-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:50:54 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@opensynergy.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
	virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
	"virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" <virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>,
	"Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
	"Ridoux, Julien" <ridouxj@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio_rtc module and related changes
Message-ID: <202403131450547f373268@mail.local>
References: <0e21e3e2be26acd70b5575b9932b3a911c9fe721.camel@infradead.org>
 <204c6339-e80d-4a98-8d07-a11eeb729497@opensynergy.com>
 <667c8d944ce9ea5c570b82b1858a70cc67b2f3e4.camel@infradead.org>
 <f6940954-334a-458b-af32-f03d8efbe607@opensynergy.com>
 <57704b2658e643fce30468dffd8c1477607f59fb.camel@infradead.org>
 <d796d9a5-8eda-4528-a6d8-1c4eba24aa1e@opensynergy.com>
 <202403131118010e7ed5bf@mail.local>
 <dcd07f0b733a90ac3f3c43a4614967bbb3ef14ad.camel@infradead.org>
 <20240313125813ec78d5a9@mail.local>
 <96be7312f7bddaf06c690e082a8028fa8b511deb.camel@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <96be7312f7bddaf06c690e082a8028fa8b511deb.camel@infradead.org>

On 13/03/2024 14:06:42+0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> If you're asking why patch 7/7 in Peter's series exists to expose the
> virtio clock through RTC, and you're not particularly interested in the
> first six, I suppose that's a fair question. As is the question of "why
> is it called virtio_rtc not virtio_ptp?". 
> 

Exactly my question, thanks :)

> But let me turn it around: if the kernel has access to this virtio
> device and *not* any other RTC, why *wouldn't* the kernel use the time
> from it? The fact that it can optionally *also* provide paired readings
> with the CPU counter doesn't actually *hurt* for the RTC use case, does
> it?

As long as it doesn't behave differently from the other RTC, I'm fine
with this. This is important because I don't want to carry any special
infrastructure for this driver or to have to special case this driver
later on because it is incompatible with some evolution of the
subsystem.

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