On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:54:15PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > 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? Yes, and SPI and so on. We do however have plenty of available room for adding a valid-for-persistent-clock flag to permit drivers to opt-in, so we can certainly still do better than the status quo. I'll hack something up and see how it goes. -- 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
