linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2.6] enable genrtc for MIPS

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] enable genrtc for MIPS
From: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:19:50 -0800
Cc: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, jsun@mvista.com
In-reply-to: <20040201.203005.74756858.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>; from anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp on Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 08:30:05PM +0900
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20040130103913.E31937@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0401302012200.10311@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20040201.203005.74756858.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 08:30:05PM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> 
> By the way, with this patch, individual board can not implement it's
> own genrtc routines.  How about making gen_rtc_time, etc. pointer to
> functions to allow overrides?
> 

Is this necessary?  How about letting us wait until there is a sensible
need?

> I think implementing rtc_get_time (mips specific) with get_rtc_time
> (genrtc) is more efficient than implementing get_rtc_time with
> rtc_get_time for most RTC chips.
> 

If I understand you correctly, you like to have board rtc read routines to 
return a rtc structure instead of the unsigned long integer.

There are actually boards which makes the current implementation more 
efficient.  
See vr4181.

In general, however, this is not a bad idea, just involving a lot more
board level changes.  I think it deserves another patch or even debate.

Jun

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>