From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54C84DDDE0 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:18:51 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: rtc-ppc From: David Woodhouse To: Alessandro Zummo In-Reply-To: <20081105021901.49dffc3e@i1501.lan.towertech.it> References: <20081105021901.49dffc3e@i1501.lan.towertech.it> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:18:46 +0100 Message-Id: <1225923526.3882.3.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 02:19 +0100, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > I was checking a few drivers for compliance and noticed that > the rtc-ppc driver registers a platform device instead of > a platform driver. > > Wouldn't be possible to have the ppc arch doing the device > thing and cleanup the driver? It would be possible, yes -- but it would be better to have the various PPC platforms just register RTC-class devices _directly_, and ditch the RTC bits from ppc_md altogether. I think we're waiting until the RTC class works with NTP before we can contemplate that, though. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation