[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090302110310.35af50ea@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:03:10 +0100
From: Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@...ertech.it>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
Cc: Richard Zidlicky <rz@...ux-m68k.org>, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David@...abs.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Generic RTC class driver
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:54:14 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com> wrote:
> Indeed. You can have a working RTC class driver for lots of hardware by just
> writing ca. 100 lines of code on top of the generic framework.
That's true, but we would then have two generic frameworks. And one
of them will have its code scattered all around the kernel.
So you either use the old rtc framework, which is perfectly functional,
or you move to the new rtc lass and write the drivers.
Layering a generic framework over another generic framework
is quite a nonsense .
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
--
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