linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: a patch for generic MIPS RTC

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: a patch for generic MIPS RTC
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:25:32 +0100 (BST)
Cc: spodstavin@ru.mvista.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20050905.224534.25910293.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1124355290.5441.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050905.135422.112260934.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0509051204140.29615@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20050905.224534.25910293.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:

> macro>  That's how other architectures do this, see e.g.
> macro> "arch/alpha/kernel/time.c".  Why should we be different, even
> macro> for now?
> 
> Please elaborate more ?  Do you mean we should implement default
> rtc_set_mmss() and take the rtc_lock in it ?  Or do you mean we should
> take rtc_lock in each board-dependent rtc_set_time/rtc_set_time ?  

 I'm not sure all chips actually require it.  Certainly the null function 
does not, so that spinlock would incur an unnecessary overhead.  Therefore 
yes, it should be board- or chip-dependent.

> macro> Also the call is named rtc_set_mmss() for an unknown reason
> macro> while all the others have set_rtc_mmss().
> 
> IIRC, you are (one of) the godfather of the function, aren't you?  :-)

 Hmm, I must have got influenced by rtc_set_time()...  Perhaps it wasn't 
that bad after all and it's all the others that should be fixed instead. 
;-)

  Maciej

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