From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] Convert remaining arches to read/update_persistent_clock Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:54:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091223.205415.232734959.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1261540762.3508.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091223050810.GA25791@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091223050810.GA25791@linux-sh.org> Sender: linux-alpha-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: lethal@linux-sh.org Cc: johnstul@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rth@twiddle.net, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, hskinnemoen@atmel.com, vapier@gentoo.org, starvik@axis.com, dhowells@redhat.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, tony.luck@intel.com, takata@linux-m32r.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, yasutake.koichi@jp.panasonic.com, kyle@mcmartin.ca From: Paul Mundt 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?