From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:59:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:59:32 -0500 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.1]:10908 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:59:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:59:20 +0100 (MET) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: BJerrick@easystreet.com, p_gortmaker@yahoo.com Subject: Re: 500 ms offset in i386 Real Time Clock setting Cc: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I don't have a problem with the rtc driver delaying 500ms I still haven't looked at things, but two points: (i) is the behaviour constant on all architectures? (ii) instead of waiting, isn't it much easier to redefine what it means to access rtc? (If you read a certain value then on average you are halfway that second; if you write a certain value you are precisely halfway that second. Maybe no delays are needed or desired.) Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/