Re: [PATCH] fix RTC_CLASS regression with PARISC

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 16:04 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:00:47 -0500
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 14:35 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > The RTC layer is very nice and it even allows writing drivers for
> > > very simplistic RTC devices (even ones that cannot be written)
> > > with ease.  I had two such cases to handle on sparc64.
> > 
> > I'm guessing they're not upstream yet (since I can't find them)?
> 
> It's in my sparc next tree:
> 
> 	master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc-next-2.6.git
> 
> > However, if you based them on rtc-ppc.c then yes, I agree, it looks
> > reasonably easy:  it's just a matter of converting over the GEN_RTC
> > PDT_TOD helpers.
> 
> That's not what I do, I use the real RAW chip drivers provided by the
> RTC layer.
> 
> That's the way to do this.
> 
> I think the powerpc folks did the wrong thing and should just register
> generic platform_device objects in their platform code, and let the
> RTC layer drive the individual devices in response.
> 
> All the powerpc folks are doing is providing a dummy shim into the
> RTC layer using their machine description vector, and not really using
> the RTC layer drivers at all.

But realistically that's all we need.  Our RTC is controlled by two
calls into firmware: a get and a set; nothing else.  We don't have the
docs to get at the clock without the firmware calls.

James