From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:00:47 -0500 > On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 14:35 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > The RTC layer is very nice and it even allows writing drivers for > > very simplistic RTC devices (even ones that cannot be written) > > with ease. I had two such cases to handle on sparc64. > > I'm guessing they're not upstream yet (since I can't find them)? It's in my sparc next tree: master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc-next-2.6.git > However, if you based them on rtc-ppc.c then yes, I agree, it looks > reasonably easy: it's just a matter of converting over the GEN_RTC > PDT_TOD helpers. That's not what I do, I use the real RAW chip drivers provided by the RTC layer. That's the way to do this. I think the powerpc folks did the wrong thing and should just register generic platform_device objects in their platform code, and let the RTC layer drive the individual devices in response. All the powerpc folks are doing is providing a dummy shim into the RTC layer using their machine description vector, and not really using the RTC layer drivers at all. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
