From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from faui80.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui80.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.38.1]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBD34829 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:27:13 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:49:08 +0100 From: Richard Zidlicky To: Helge Deller Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Alan Cox , parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, Linux/PPC Development , Linux/m68k Message-ID: <20030112224908.A618@linux-m68k.org> References: <200301121333.17077.deller@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200301121333.17077.deller@gmx.de>; from deller@gmx.de on Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:35:33PM +0100 Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: Generic RTC driver in 2.4.x Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:35:33PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > > BTW, perhaps we should move the global RTC_* definitions in to > > , or merge them with the ones in and > > move them to ? > > IMHO leaving them architecture specific in seems best to me, and it > leaves the most possibilities to make them later more dependend on the hardware. in genrtc the RTC_* defs should be used only for interface definition, unlike rtc.c where they are 1:1 with some obscure bits in the rtc chip and also happen to be the interface.. It would make sense to merge them into , whether it is a good idea to do it in 2.4 is another question. Stuff that is really hw dependent should use different naming (and stay in asm/rtc.h of course). Richard From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:49:08 +0100 From: Richard Zidlicky To: Helge Deller Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Alan Cox , parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, Linux/PPC Development , Linux/m68k Subject: Re: Generic RTC driver in 2.4.x Message-ID: <20030112224908.A618@linux-m68k.org> References: <200301121333.17077.deller@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200301121333.17077.deller@gmx.de>; from deller@gmx.de on Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:35:33PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:35:33PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > > BTW, perhaps we should move the global RTC_* definitions in to > > , or merge them with the ones in and > > move them to ? > > IMHO leaving them architecture specific in seems best to me, and it > leaves the most possibilities to make them later more dependend on the hardware. in genrtc the RTC_* defs should be used only for interface definition, unlike rtc.c where they are 1:1 with some obscure bits in the rtc chip and also happen to be the interface.. It would make sense to merge them into , whether it is a good idea to do it in 2.4 is another question. Stuff that is really hw dependent should use different naming (and stay in asm/rtc.h of course). Richard ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/