Proposal: Removing redundant EpochTime interface from dump entry

[Patrick Williams]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:09:57PM +0530, dhruvaraj S wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 22:02, Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:13:44PM +0530, dhruvaraj S wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 21:09, Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 08:52:15AM +0530, dhruvaraj S wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the potential concern would be with bmcweb.  There appears
> > > > to maybe be some common code related to LogServices that expects all
> > > > logs to have the Time.EpochTime interface.  Are you going to add
> > > > alternative code there to look at the Common.Progress interface instead?
> > > > Is this acceptable to the bmcweb side?
> > >
> > > Common.Progress interface is already implemented in dump entry and
> > > bmcweb reads that
> > > for the status of the dump, now that needs to be extended to read the
> > > CompletedTime also.
> >
> > Are you planning to do that work or is this a call for assistance?
> I can make that change, but sent this note to understand if any more concerns

As far as I can tell from this query, all other users of Time.EpochTime
are related to Host interfaces for time-base.

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aopenbmc%20Time.EpochTime&type=code

-- 
Patrick Williams
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20230921/e3682a0d/attachment.sig>