On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:57:28 -0800 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, we should have one of these. :) :) great! now let's see if we can get others to agree! > A better default might be to update all the RTCs on the system. > > I'm thinking of my trusty test-case here: rtc0 is highly functional > (including wake from RTC alarm) but not battery backed, while rtc1 > is battery backed but only tracks time. NTP really needs to update > both of them ... rtc0 since that's what's used most of the time, > and also rtc1 since that's what actually *stores* the time during > power off cycles. well, let's start with one... we all lived with one rtc until a couple of year ago :) > > +static int rtc_systohc(struct rtc_time *tm) > > I think "static" will lose, especially since ... wooops! -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
