| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Problems with LCD panel & SCSI support with Linux 2.4.24-pre2 on Cobalt Qube II, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: MIPS Kernel size, Smith, Todd |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] enable genrtc for MIPS, Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] enable genrtc for MIPS, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |