From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFE167A7C for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:02:15 +1100 (EST) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: "Mark A. Greer" In-Reply-To: <41F0449C.5020603@mvista.com> References: <41EC29A8.1040703@mvista.com> <1106259956.18397.10.camel@gaston> <41F0449C.5020603@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:01:12 +1100 Message-Id: <1106265672.5387.14.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list Subject: Re: [RFC] Option to disable mapping genrtc calls to ppc_md calls List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 16:54 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > Choosing a) give you more flexibility within PPC but is PPC only; > choosing b) is generic but assumes its the only rtc chip that will be > used by whatever kernel binary its put in. > > I chose b) and to reuse the genrtc code. In a sane world, reusing code > is considered a good thing... > > Its obvious that you and Tom prefer a). That's fine but if I switch to > a), I know the first comment I'll get when I post the driver to lmkl > will be, "Why would you make this ppc-specific when you could have made > it generic?" Will you and Tom then defend that decision for me? > > Also, this is not board-specific as you and Tom have tried to suggest. > Assuming I change the #ifdef in rtc.h to remove the option as I think > Tom and I are agreeing upon, you select the i2c algo/adapter, the > i2c/rtc client and its there. Where are the "gross hacks for every board"? Because it makes things like CONFIG_PPC_MULTIPLATFORM impossible, which means you end up with a CONFIG_* mess. I consider that more important than re-using code. In any case, as I wrote, the proper solution is to update genrtc to define rtc_ops so that you get both a) and b), it shouldn't be hard to update the archs using it. Ben.