於 四，2014-03-13 於 09:12 +0100，Thomas Gleixner 提到： > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, joeyli wrote: > > 於 三，2014-03-12 於 20:59 -0700，H. Peter Anvin 提到： > > > On 03/12/2014 08:55 PM, joeyli wrote: > > > > > > > > So do not care "CMOS RTC Not Present", if TAD is present then we use it > > > > instead of CMOS RTC in all kernel code? or we still can use CMOS RTC? > > > > > > > > > > Why would we use *both*!? How would that possibly make sense? > > > > > > -hpa > > > > > > > Yes, it does not make sense for using both. > > > > I switched the code in get_rtc_time() set_rtc_time() to TAD when it > > present, just make sure I'm on the right path. > > No, you're not. get/set_rtc_time() is a complete trainwreck and as I > said before it should move into the rtc subsystem. > > There is no reason at all to keep that stuff in the arch specific > code. It's there for historical reasons and that does not justify to > add more mess to it.
Fully understand now. Thanks for your explanation. > > So the right thing to do is: > > 1) Add eventually missing functionality to the RTC subsystem > > 2) Move the arch specific cmos stuff to the rtc subsystem as proper > drivers > > 3) Add TAD there after #2 has been completed. > > Any attempt to add TAD to arch/x86 is NACKed unconditionally. > > Thanks, > > tglx Does there have any people already start the work of #1 and #2? Thanks Joey Lee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
