From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [85.118.1.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135D3DE0AA for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:35:51 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Generic RTC class driver From: David Woodhouse To: Geert Uytterhoeven In-Reply-To: References: <1235144809-32468-1-git-send-email-Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com> <20090220170454.04382e9e@i1501.lan.towertech.it> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:35:27 +0900 Message-Id: <1235511327.18632.73.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Alessandro Zummo , Richard Zidlicky , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, David@ozlabs.org, Linux Kernel Development , Kyle McMartin , Linux/PPC Development , Linux/m68k List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:34 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > my opinion on this kind of stuff is that I want to avoid the layering > > of implementations under the rtc subsystem. I'd rather prefer that each > > rtc device had its own driver. > > > > I've made error in the past, by accepting such kind of drivers, and > > would like to avoid that it happens again. > > So you want us to kill the ppc_md.[gs]et_rtc_time() [ppc], mach_hwclk() [m68k], > mach_gettod() [m68knommu] (and probably a few other) abstractions, and move all > RTC code out of arch/ into seperate drivers under drivers/rtc/ instead? That's the ideal... although did we get NTP sync working again yet? The rtc-ppc driver was intended as a short-term workaround so that we can enable the generic RTC class (which was required for PA Semi Electra, iirc), and still have stuff work on other platforms. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation