From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3329DDECE for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:41:31 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <17864.25011.534976.210942@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20070125073754.GA10004@lixom.net> <17864.25011.534976.210942@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <01A15290-2EA9-454A-8DD5-28A01E39862B@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic RTC support for PPC Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:40:33 -0600 To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Olof Johansson , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, kimphill@freescale.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Feb 6, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Olof Johansson writes: > >> Make the PPC RTC functions use the generic RTC infrastructure if they >> are not already defined (and an RTC is registered in the system). >> >> This should make it possible to remove the hideous direct access used >> in some of the 83xx platforms. > > What was the consensus in the end about this? Should it go in for > 2.6.21? Are the "scheduling while atomic" issues that existed before actually been fixed? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116378523012349&w=2 - k