Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] Convert remaining arches to read/update_persistent_clock

[Paul Mundt]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:54:15PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Mundt <lethal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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?

Yes, and SPI and so on. We do however have plenty of available room for
adding a valid-for-persistent-clock flag to permit drivers to opt-in, so
we can certainly still do better than the status quo. I'll hack something
up and see how it goes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/