[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080908.160441.124972717.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com
Cc: david-b@...bell.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix RTC_CLASS regression with PARISC
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:00:47 -0500
> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 14:35 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > The RTC layer is very nice and it even allows writing drivers for
> > very simplistic RTC devices (even ones that cannot be written)
> > with ease. I had two such cases to handle on sparc64.
>
> I'm guessing they're not upstream yet (since I can't find them)?
It's in my sparc next tree:
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc-next-2.6.git
> However, if you based them on rtc-ppc.c then yes, I agree, it looks
> reasonably easy: it's just a matter of converting over the GEN_RTC
> PDT_TOD helpers.
That's not what I do, I use the real RAW chip drivers provided by the
RTC layer.
That's the way to do this.
I think the powerpc folks did the wrong thing and should just register
generic platform_device objects in their platform code, and let the
RTC layer drive the individual devices in response.
All the powerpc folks are doing is providing a dummy shim into the
RTC layer using their machine description vector, and not really using
the RTC layer drivers at all.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists