On Sun, 2026-11-01 at 11:30 +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Felix > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 at 16:38, Felix Moessbauer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Let users know that the protocol exists and how to disable it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Felix Moessbauer <[email protected]> > > --- > > doc/develop/uefi/uefi.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/doc/develop/uefi/uefi.rst b/doc/develop/uefi/uefi.rst > > index 94ddf690440..7d5d8943360 100644 > > --- a/doc/develop/uefi/uefi.rst > > +++ b/doc/develop/uefi/uefi.rst > > @@ -1015,6 +1015,19 @@ So our final format of the FilePathList[] is:: > > > > Loaded image - end node (0xff) - VenMedia - initrd_1 - [end node > > (0x01) - initrd_n ...] - end node (0xff) > > > > +Timestamp protocol > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +The EFI_TIMESTAMP_PROTOCOL gives UEFI applications access to a monotonic > > +timestamp counter, e.g. for performance measurements. It is enabled by > > +default and can be disabled with:: > > + > > + CONFIG_EFI_TIMESTAMP_PROTOCOL=n > > + > > +GetTimestamp() returns the value of U-Boot's tick counter (get_ticks()). > > +GetProperties() reports the tick frequency (get_tbclk()) and an end value > > of > > +0xffffffffffffffff as U-Boot extends narrower hardware counters to 64 bits. > > It's true that all board functions return a u64. But some only return > a 32bit value. E.g ast_timer_get_count(). > > I think we should clarify here that the return value depends on the > board implementation, but the reutn value is guaranteed to be 64bits.
Ack! While doing so, I'll also add a comment about the wrap-around situation. Thanks for the review! Felix > > Cheers > /Ilias > > + > > Links > > ----- > > > > -- > > 2.55.0 > >
