linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix RTC_CLASS regression with PARISC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:23:06 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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

On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 16:04 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 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.

But realistically that's all we need.  Our RTC is controlled by two
calls into firmware: a get and a set; nothing else.  We don't have the
docs to get at the clock without the firmware calls.

James


--
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/