On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:34 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > my opinion on this kind of stuff is that I want to avoid the layering > > of implementations under the rtc subsystem. I'd rather prefer that each > > rtc device had its own driver. > > > > I've made error in the past, by accepting such kind of drivers, and > > would like to avoid that it happens again. > > So you want us to kill the ppc_md.[gs]et_rtc_time() [ppc], mach_hwclk() > [m68k], > mach_gettod() [m68knommu] (and probably a few other) abstractions, and move > all > RTC code out of arch/ into seperate drivers under drivers/rtc/ instead?
That's the ideal... although did we get NTP sync working again yet? The rtc-ppc driver was intended as a short-term workaround so that we can enable the generic RTC class (which was required for PA Semi Electra, iirc), and still have stuff work on other platforms. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
