From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-in-01.arcor-online.net (mail-in-01.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.arcor.de", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F53DDEF4 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 05:59:08 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1179338347.8132.200.camel@rhino> References: <1179245829.8132.100.camel@rhino> <1179246470.8132.112.camel@rhino> <1179333421.7018.17.camel@ld0161-tx32> <1179338347.8132.200.camel@rhino> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Add legacy devices to mpc8641_hpcn.dts Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 21:59:02 +0200 To: Wade Farnsworth Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> Is "rtc" a standard OF device, or are we making up a >> new thing that should be documented in booting-with-OF.txt ? >> And is the plan to somehow use this entry in the future? > > It is my understanding that "rtc" is a standard OF device. Can anybody > confirm this? It is. > This could be used in the platform-specific RTC code to get the ports > from the device tree. Currently, however, I simply use RTC_PORT(x) > from > asm/mc146818rtc.h. Is it preferable to use the device tree here? If you instantiate the RTC device from platform code, and the device sits at the same address on all boards you support, the only good thing you get from using the device tree is that you don't have to hardcode a number in the Linux code. Using the device tree however the RTC device could be detected and instantiated from more generic code, a much better situation. Segher