On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:35:30AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:33:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 06:11:56PM +0200, Kenneth Johansson wrote: > > > Dan Malek wrote: > > > > > > > > Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > I do wish someone else would speak up tho. Does anyone out there > > > > > have an > > > > > opinion? > > > > > > > > If the information from /proc is just used for pretty print out of > > > > information, I really don't care. If there are applications that read > > > > this for some internal configuration and flexibility, we better have a > > > > standard format. > > > Debian uses /proc/cpuinfo to find out what utility to use for the RTC > > > (clock,hwclock). This could be fixed if the code from clock was > > > integrated in > > > hwclock. hwclock tries every method it knows until one works. > > > > This is no longer true. Woody anyways assumes that /dev/rtc will work in > > the 'standard' way. But,, debian does parse for machien type for doing > > board/platform specific modules. > > Yes, but last I checked the util-linux install script would still die > if the machine: field wasn't present at all. IIRC it was checking for > PReP machines for some reason.
util-linux is broken then. All PPC (save APUS) can have a working /dev/rtc, via CONFIG_PPC_RTC. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
