Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20091223.205415.232734959.davem@davemloft.net>
To: lethal@linux-sh.org
Cc: johnstul@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rth@twiddle.net,
       linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
       linux@arm.linux.org.uk, hskinnemoen@atmel.com, vapier@gentoo.org,
       starvik@axis.com, dhowells@redhat.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp,
       tony.luck@intel.com, takata@linux-m32r.org, geert@linux-m68k.org,
       yasutake.koichi@jp.panasonic.com, kyle@mcmartin.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] Convert remaining arches to
 read/update_persistent_clock
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20091223050810.GA25791@linux-sh.org>
References: <1261540762.3508.61.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20091223050810.GA25791@linux-sh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 915
Lines: 19

From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/