From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] Convert remaining arches to read/update_persistent_clock Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:10:21 +0900 Message-ID: <20091224051021.GA28878@linux-sh.org> References: <1261540762.3508.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091223050810.GA25791@linux-sh.org> <20091223.205415.232734959.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091223.205415.232734959.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Miller 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 On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:54:15PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > 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? Yes, and SPI and so on. We do however have plenty of available room for adding a valid-for-persistent-clock flag to permit drivers to opt-in, so we can certainly still do better than the status quo. I'll hack something up and see how it goes.