Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:54:15 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] Convert remaining arches to read/update_persistent_clock | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> 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?
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |