From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: m68k 2.6.26-1 vs 2.4.30 comparison Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:31:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20090503072811.GB3179@luminet.net> <10f740e80905030408p38f87e09ueabc45ef98d4a88f@mail.gmail.com> <20090515023743.GA1647@luminet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:48489 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757617AbZEOJbO (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 05:31:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090515023743.GA1647@luminet.net> (Lance Tagliapietra's message of "Thu, 14 May 2009 21:37:45 -0500") Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Lance Tagliapietra writes: > Now, there is a /dev/rtc device of type 10 135. Interestingly, though is that the > kernel is looking for an "rtc0" device based on the kernel config. So I'll make > that change to the kernel config and re-build and see what I get -- or would it > be a better approach to add a /dev/rtc0 c 10 135? I think you need a c 254 0 device if you use rtc-generic. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."