[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091223.205415.232734959.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:54:15 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: lethal@...ux-sh.org
Cc: johnstul@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rth@...ddle.net,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, hskinnemoen@...el.com, vapier@...too.org,
starvik@...s.com, dhowells@...hat.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
tony.luck@...el.com, takata@...ux-m32r.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com, kyle@...artin.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] Convert remaining arches to
read/update_persistent_clock
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:08:10 +0900
> In any event, I wonder if it might make more sense to take something like
> the SPARC implementation that is simply a wrapper around the RTC, move
> that out in to a more generic place, and permit architectures to select
> an RTC class backed persistent clock instead (it seems to be only
> platforms that haven't caught up yet in terms of generic time and RTC
> migration that would want to define this interface on their own at all at
> this point)?
This sounds nice but don't we have a slew of RTC types that need
to be accessed over I2C and thus you can't touch them without
sleeping?
--
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