From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alessandro Zummo Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Generic RTC class driver Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:47:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20090304134705.7d9bbe5c@i1501.lan.towertech.it> References: <20090224231154.60ba18d6@i1501.lan.towertech.it> <1235514727.18632.93.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090225111836.621412c1@i1501.lan.towertech.it> <20090227185514.GA1071@linux-m68k.org> <20090302110310.35af50ea@i1501.lan.towertech.it> <20090302120950.0d35e06c@i1501.lan.towertech.it> <20090303190609.GB6907@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx0.towertech.it ([213.215.222.73]:33071 "HELO mx0.towertech.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752185AbZCDMrQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:47:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com Cc: Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com, Paul Mundt , Linux/m68k , Richard Zidlicky , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Development , Kyle McMartin , Linux/PPC Development , David Woodhouse On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:26:29 +0100 (CET) Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Thanks Paul, I wasn't aware of that thread! > > Yes, this is almost the same. The only part I don't agree with is the move of > the creation of the platform device from arch-specific code to rtc-firmware.c, > as this makes autoloading the driver more difficult. and it's also against a proper implementation of the device/driver model. > Seems like everybody but the RTC maintainer has an interest in having an RTC > class driver on top of [gs]et_rtc_time()... ;-) That's because everyone is lazy :) Seriously, if you want to handle it in the way we wrote in the previous emails, it's ok for me. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it