On 14 March 2024 11:13:37 CET, Peter Hilber <peter.hil...@opensynergy.com> wrote: >> To a certain extent, as long as the virtio-rtc device is designed to expose >> time precisely and unambiguously, it's less important if the Linux kernel >> *today* can use that. Although of course we should strive for that. Let's >> be...well, *unambiguous*, I suppose... that we've changed topics to discuss >> that though. >> > >As Virtio is extensible (unlike hardware), my approach is to mostly specify >only what also has a PoC user and a use case.
If we get memory-mapped (X, Y, Z, ±x, ±y) I'll have a user and a use case on day one. Otherwise, as I said in my first response, I can go do that as a separate device and decide that virtio_rtc doesn't meet our needs (especially for maintaining accuracy over LM). My main concern for virto_rtc is that we avoid *ambiguity*. Yes, I get that it's extensible but we don't want a v1.0 of the spec, implemented by various hypervisors, which still leaves guests not knowing what the actual time is. That would not be good. And even UTC without a leap second indicator has that problem.
