From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56223 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750765AbaKXKOX (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:14:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:14:15 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: JWP Cc: kerolasa@gmail.com, util-linux Subject: Re: RFC hwclock: refactoring Message-ID: <20141124101415.GB926@x2.net.home> References: <5470FE32.9030805@gmx.com> <54728FF3.2020600@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <54728FF3.2020600@gmx.com> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:54:59PM -0500, JWP wrote: > I intentionally did not include --directisa and hwclock-cmos.c in my > RFC, because my current position is that I2C access should remain in > hwclock for troubleshooting and testing purposes. Sure, hwclock-cmos.c is still usable. > of the main development channel. I wanted to see if the Alpha and > Award code was somehow important to someone. My opinion is to remove > it, but maybe there is something I am unaware of. I think we don't have to care about Award workarounds at all. Linux kernel provides RTC layer for Alpha, the question is usability, but I think we can be optimistic and drop the alpha specific cmos code :-) Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com