From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755005AbYIHXXU (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:23:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754438AbYIHXXK (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:23:10 -0400 Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:58389 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753701AbYIHXXJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:23:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix RTC_CLASS regression with PARISC From: James Bottomley To: David Miller Cc: david-b@pacbell.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080908.160441.124972717.davem@davemloft.net> References: <200809081429.57805.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080908.143504.121592746.davem@davemloft.net> <1220914847.8074.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080908.160441.124972717.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:23:06 -0500 Message-Id: <1220916186.8074.84.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 16:04 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: James Bottomley > 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