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

From: Andrey Volkov <avolkov@varma-el.com>
To: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@mvista.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
	lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Added support of ST m41t85 rtc chip
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:45:45 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <437B4619.6050805@varma-el.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051116025714.GK5546@mag.az.mvista.com>


Mark A. Greer wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:26PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>First, a question. Can't you merge the M41T85 support into the m41t00
>>driver?
>>
>>Mark, care to comment on that possibility, and/or on the code itself?
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I wrestled with the ST website for the m41t85 datasheet but lost so I
> I can only guess from the patch.  The drivers do look very similar.
> It looks like the m41t85 is basically a m41t00 with an alarm (watchdog
> timer never used AFAICT).  
http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/7531/m41st85w.pdf
(I agree ST's (and Maxim's too) site is for strength of mind men :) ).
Also added onchip clock, battery and poweroff time
(HT == Halt Timestamp).

> Also there are some differences in register
> offsets and [maybe] some minor differences within the registers but
> nothing that serious.
Mainly you're right, but, as I wrote before, due to _many_ little
differences I get #if/#else.. noise (half file, if be more precisely,
was under #if/#else) in unified file. But, if this noise
will be acceptable, then yes, I agree to merge this drivers, as minimum,
for better administration.

<snip>

-- 
Regards
Andrey Volkov