| To: | alessandro.zummo@towertech.it |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 3/4] rtc: Add rtc-tx4939 driver |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:17:44 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20081120164533.73ba1f7f@i1501.lan.towertech.it> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <1227194815-16200-1-git-send-email-anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20081120164533.73ba1f7f@i1501.lan.towertech.it> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:45:33 +0100, Alessandro Zummo
<alessandro.zummo@towertech.it> wrote:
> > +struct tx4939rtc_plat_data {
> > + struct rtc_device *rtc;
> > + struct tx4939_rtc_reg __iomem *rtcreg;
> > + spinlock_t lock;
> > +};
>
> is the additional lock necessary?
It is used to protect sysfs nvram access from rtc ops.
Hm, can I use rtc->ops_lock in sysfs read/write routine to achieve it?
I will address all other issues. Thanks.
---
Atsushi Nemoto
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 3/4] rtc: Add rtc-tx4939 driver, Alessandro Zummo |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 3/4] rtc: Add rtc-tx4939 driver, Alessandro Zummo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 3/4] rtc: Add rtc-tx4939 driver, Alessandro Zummo |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 3/4] rtc: Add rtc-tx4939 driver, Alessandro Zummo |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |