On Monday 28 May 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:01:57AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > This is an "RTC framework" driver for the "CMOS" RTCs which are standard
> > on PCs and some other platforms. That's MC146818 compatible silicon.
> > ...
> > +static int cmos_read_al
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:01:57AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> This is an "RTC framework" driver for the "CMOS" RTCs which are standard
> on PCs and some other platforms. That's MC146818 compatible silicon.
> Advantages of this vs. drivers/char/rtc.c (use one _or_ the other, only
> one will be
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 4:01 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> So the attached version of the rtc-cmos patch uses asm-generic
> and also adds Kconfig dependencies for architectures with usable
> versions of that header.
No really ... _this_ version. I seem to have too many versions
floating around,
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 8:37 am, Woody Suwalski wrote:
> As to the patch: applied to 2.6.20-rc4, both on PC and ARM, commented
> out "EXPERIMENTAL"...
>
> To build your new patch for ARM I have modified the line "depends on
> RTC_CLASS && (X86_PC || ACPI || ARM)"...
>
> On Netwinder ARM - c
Russell King wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:17:25PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 9:17 am, Woody Suwalski wrote:
There are PPC, M68K, SPARC, and other boards that could also
use this; ARMs tend to integrate some other RTC on-chip. ...
Let me pu
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:17:25PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 9:17 am, Woody Suwalski wrote:
> > >> There are PPC, M68K, SPARC, and other boards that could also
> > >> use this; ARMs tend to integrate some other RTC on-chip. ...
> >
> > > Let me put that differentl
On Saturday 06 January 2007 9:17 am, Woody Suwalski wrote:
> >> There are PPC, M68K, SPARC, and other boards that could also
> >> use this; ARMs tend to integrate some other RTC on-chip. ...
>
> > Let me put that differently. That should be done as a separate
> > patch, adding (a) that platform_
David Brownell wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 7:10 pm, David Brownell wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 12:45 pm, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
I'd appreciate if someone (Woody?) can test
this code on ARM.
There are PPC, M68K, SPARC, and other boards that could also
use this;
On Friday 05 January 2007 7:10 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 12:45 pm, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> > I'd appreciate if someone (Woody?) can test
> > this code on ARM.
>
> There are PPC, M68K, SPARC, and other boards that could also
> use this; ARMs tend to integrate some o
On Friday 05 January 2007 12:45 pm, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:01:57 -0800
> David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is an "RTC framework" driver for the "CMOS" RTCs which are standard
> > on PCs and some other platforms. That's MC146818 compatible silicon.
> > A
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:01:57 -0800
David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an "RTC framework" driver for the "CMOS" RTCs which are standard
> on PCs and some other platforms. That's MC146818 compatible silicon.
> Advantages of this vs. drivers/char/rtc.c (use one _or_ the other, only
>
This is an "RTC framework" driver for the "CMOS" RTCs which are standard
on PCs and some other platforms. That's MC146818 compatible silicon.
Advantages of this vs. drivers/char/rtc.c (use one _or_ the other, only
one will be able to claim the RTC irq) include:
- This leverages both the new RTC
12 matches
Mail list logo
