Re: [PATCH 1/1] Added support of ST m41t85 rtc chip

["Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:19:58PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:

<snip>

> This is why you want to move the decision at the run time level rather
> than the compilation time level whenever possible. The clock output
> option can't be a configuration option. I previously suggested a sysfs
> file, because this gives the greatest flexibility. If you don't like
> the idea for whatever reason, you may go for a module parameter instead.
> 
> Same reasonment holds for the m41t00 vs. m41t85 choice. You can't decide
> at compilation time. If we go for a common driver, it has to support
> both devices at the same time. Mark suggested to use platform-specific
> data. I'm not familiar with this, but it sounds reasonable.

I don't know the entire history behind platform_data but my
understanding is that it was designed to provide a mechanism for
platform-specific code to pass info to drivers.

I *believe* that this would be a proper use of platform_data but I'm
hoping someone out in lkml-land who knows better than I will confirm that.

> I don't know for sure at this point whether having a single driver is
> the right choice, I'll let you and Mark check it out and decide. But
> the right way to determine this is definitely not through the use of
> #if/#endif preprocessing stuff.

I agree.  We can and absolutely should do this at run-time if a merged
driver is feasible.  I'll dig thru the datasheets today and start
prototyping some code if it looks like we can merge the code.

Mark