From: Paul Mundt <lethal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:08:10 +0900 > In any event, I wonder if it might make more sense to take something like > the SPARC implementation that is simply a wrapper around the RTC, move > that out in to a more generic place, and permit architectures to select > an RTC class backed persistent clock instead (it seems to be only > platforms that haven't caught up yet in terms of generic time and RTC > migration that would want to define this interface on their own at all at > this point)? This sounds nice but don't we have a slew of RTC types that need to be accessed over I2C and thus you can't touch them without sleeping? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
