From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] enable generic rtc hook for the MPC8349 mITX
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:25:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060929232541.GN2385@smtp.west.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060927234304.0cf4d22d.kim.phillips@freescale.com>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:43:04PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:58:53 -0700
> Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:34:43PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > > On Sep 26, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc834x_itx.c b/arch/
> > > > powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc834x_itx.c
> > > > index 969fbb6..8c676d7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc834x_itx.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc834x_itx.c
> > > > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ static int __init mpc834x_itx_probe(void
> > > > return 1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RTC_CLASS
> > > > +late_initcall(rtc_class_hookup);
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Any reason we can't just do this in setup_arch?
> >
> > I think because of rtc-over-i2c and similar where we need the whole rest
> > of the system 'up' before we can try and use the RTC (which might not be
> > the case for this specific board, but for consistency it looks like a
> > good thing to always do it like this).
> >
> this is indeed the case, as with the static assignment of the ppc_md rtc_time functions in define_machine. In the early assignment case, the kernel oopses early in rtc_class_open().
>
> During testing I noticed hwclock get/set operations worked even without hooking up with the ppc_md rtc_time functions. Turns out this rtc_class provides access to the RTC to the whole kernel and userspace:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/20/220
>
> so, both of these patches are really unnecessary, unless there's a genuine consumer in arch/powerpc that I can't find (I'm assuming get_boot_time() isn't one of them since it gets called way too early in the rtc-over-i2c based platform case).
>
> So we should just configure RTC_CLASS and the specific chip and we're done. :)
Does this mean we can then rip out some existing code, so long as
there's associated cleanup / rtc class support additions?
--
Tom Rini
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-29 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-26 22:46 [PATCH 2/2] enable generic rtc hook for the MPC8349 mITX Kim Phillips
2006-09-27 4:34 ` Kumar Gala
2006-09-27 15:58 ` Tom Rini
2006-09-28 4:43 ` Kim Phillips
2006-09-29 23:25 ` Tom Rini [this message]
2006-10-02 1:51 ` Mark A. Greer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060929232541.GN2385@smtp.west.cox.net \
--to=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=kim.phillips@freescale.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).