From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1030274AbWGZAAe@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1030274AbWGZAAe (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:00:34 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030275AbWGZAAe
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:00:34 -0400
Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:20237 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030274AbWGZAAd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:00:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:44 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, jg@freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RTC: Add mmap method to rtc character driver
Message-ID: <20060725235644.GA5147@localhost.localdomain>
References: <44C66C91.8090700@zytor.com> <20060725192138.GI4608@hmsreliant.homelinux.net> <F09D8005-BD93-4348-9FD1-0FA5D8D096F1@kernel.crashing.org> <20060725194733.GJ4608@hmsreliant.homelinux.net> <21d7e9970607251304n5681bf44gc751c21fd79be99d@mail.gmail.com> <44C67E1A.7050105@zytor.com> <20060725204736.GK4608@hmsreliant.homelinux.net> <44C6842C.8020501@zytor.com> <20060725222547.GA3973@localhost.localdomain> <70FED39F-E2DF-48C8-B401-97F8813B988E@kernel.crashing.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70FED39F-E2DF-48C8-B401-97F8813B988E@kernel.crashing.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:29:25AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >Yes, but if its in trade for something thats being used currently  
> >which hurts
> >more (case in point being the X server), using this solution is a  
> >net gain.
> 
> ...in the short term.
> 
And for any arch that isn't able to leverage a speedup via a vdso implementation
of a simmilar functionality in the long term

> >I'm not arguing with you that adding a low res gettimeofday  
> >vsyscall is a better
> >long term solution, but doing that requires potentially several  
> >implementations
> >in the C library accross a range of architectures, some of which  
> >may not be able
> >to provide a time solution any better than what the gettimeofday  
> >syscall
> >provides today.  The /dev/rtc solution is easy, available right  
> >now, and applies
> >to all arches.
> 
> "All"?
> 
It there any arch for which the rtc driver doesn't function?
Neil

> 
> Segher