Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
+config RTC_DRV_M5441x
+ tristate Freescale Coldfire M5441x RTC support
+ depends on M5441x
+ help
+ This enables support for the RTC on the Freescale Coldfire 5441x
+ (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418).
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
+ will be called rtc-m5441x.
But the platform device is called differently:
+static struct platform_driver m5441x_rtc_driver = {
+ .driver.name= mcfrtc,
+ .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(m5441x_rtc_remove),
+};
Is there a specific reason for that?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
On Sunday 17 June 2012 12:50:45 am Steven King wrote: Add support for the Coldfire m5441x on-chip rtc. Signed-off-by: Stven King sfk...@fdwdc.com D'oh! that should be Steven not Stven. ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 2:09:51 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
+config RTC_DRV_M5441x
+ tristate Freescale Coldfire M5441x RTC support
+ depends on M5441x
+ help
+ This enables support for the RTC on the Freescale Coldfire
5441x + (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418).
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
+ will be called rtc-m5441x.
But the platform device is called differently:
+static struct platform_driver m5441x_rtc_driver = {
+ .driver.name = mcfrtc,
+ .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(m5441x_rtc_remove),
+};
Is there a specific reason for that?
You mean the mcfrtc bit? Thats the same as what we do for all of the other
That's what I meant.
Coldfire peripherals, ie mcfqspi, mcfuart, etc.
So why not call the driver mcf-rtc?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
On Sunday 17 June 2012 4:15:03 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 2:09:51 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
+config RTC_DRV_M5441x
+ tristate Freescale Coldfire M5441x RTC support
+ depends on M5441x
+ help
+ This enables support for the RTC on the Freescale Coldfire
5441x + (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418).
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the
module + will be called rtc-m5441x.
But the platform device is called differently:
+static struct platform_driver m5441x_rtc_driver = {
+ .driver.name = mcfrtc,
+ .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(m5441x_rtc_remove),
+};
Is there a specific reason for that?
You mean the mcfrtc bit? Thats the same as what we do for all of the
other
That's what I meant.
Coldfire peripherals, ie mcfqspi, mcfuart, etc.
So why not call the driver mcf-rtc?
Because that rtc implementation is specific to the m5441x; should someone
implement a driver for the rtc on the 532x or 54455 which are somewhat
different than the m5441x, then they might well need a separate rtc-m532x or
rtc-m54455.
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
Hi Steven,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 4:15:03 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 2:09:51 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
+config RTC_DRV_M5441x
+ tristate Freescale Coldfire M5441x RTC support
+ depends on M5441x
+ help
+ This enables support for the RTC on the Freescale Coldfire
5441x + (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418).
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the
module + will be called rtc-m5441x.
But the platform device is called differently:
+static struct platform_driver m5441x_rtc_driver = {
+ .driver.name = mcfrtc,
+ .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(m5441x_rtc_remove),
+};
Is there a specific reason for that?
You mean the mcfrtc bit? Thats the same as what we do for all of the
other
That's what I meant.
Coldfire peripherals, ie mcfqspi, mcfuart, etc.
So why not call the driver mcf-rtc?
Because that rtc implementation is specific to the m5441x; should someone
implement a driver for the rtc on the 532x or 54455 which are somewhat
different than the m5441x, then they might well need a separate rtc-m532x or
rtc-m54455.
At that point, you'll have to call the platform device rtc-m532x or rtc-m54455
as well, as mcfrtc is already taken for the m5441x, right?
So why not call the platform device rtc-m5441x now?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
On Sunday 17 June 2012 4:50:27 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Steven,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 4:15:03 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 2:09:51 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
+config RTC_DRV_M5441x
+ tristate Freescale Coldfire M5441x RTC support
+ depends on M5441x
+ help
+ This enables support for the RTC on the Freescale
Coldfire 5441x + (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418).
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the
module + will be called rtc-m5441x.
But the platform device is called differently:
+static struct platform_driver m5441x_rtc_driver = {
+ .driver.name = mcfrtc,
+ .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(m5441x_rtc_remove),
+};
Is there a specific reason for that?
You mean the mcfrtc bit? Thats the same as what we do for all of
the other
That's what I meant.
Coldfire peripherals, ie mcfqspi, mcfuart, etc.
So why not call the driver mcf-rtc?
Because that rtc implementation is specific to the m5441x; should someone
implement a driver for the rtc on the 532x or 54455 which are somewhat
different than the m5441x, then they might well need a separate rtc-m532x
or rtc-m54455.
At that point, you'll have to call the platform device rtc-m532x or
rtc-m54455 as well, as mcfrtc is already taken for the m5441x, right?
No. The others would still use mcfrtc as their device name. Thats the whole
point. The platform code in arch/m68k/platform/coldfire/device.c can have
single definition of an 'mcfrtc' device and which ever coldfire version is
selected determines which rtc would be availible.
So why not call the platform device rtc-m5441x now?
Because that would be wrong.
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add rtc driver for Coldfire M5441x.
Hi Steven,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 4:50:27 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 4:15:03 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012 2:09:51 am Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven King sfk...@fdwdc.com wrote:
+config RTC_DRV_M5441x
+ tristate Freescale Coldfire M5441x RTC support
+ depends on M5441x
+ help
+ This enables support for the RTC on the Freescale
Coldfire 5441x + (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418).
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the
module + will be called rtc-m5441x.
But the platform device is called differently:
+static struct platform_driver m5441x_rtc_driver = {
+ .driver.name = mcfrtc,
+ .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(m5441x_rtc_remove),
+};
Is there a specific reason for that?
You mean the mcfrtc bit? Thats the same as what we do for all of
the other
That's what I meant.
Coldfire peripherals, ie mcfqspi, mcfuart, etc.
So why not call the driver mcf-rtc?
Because that rtc implementation is specific to the m5441x; should someone
implement a driver for the rtc on the 532x or 54455 which are somewhat
different than the m5441x, then they might well need a separate rtc-m532x
or rtc-m54455.
At that point, you'll have to call the platform device rtc-m532x or
rtc-m54455 as well, as mcfrtc is already taken for the m5441x, right?
No. The others would still use mcfrtc as their device name. Thats the whole
point. The platform code in arch/m68k/platform/coldfire/device.c can have
single definition of an 'mcfrtc' device and which ever coldfire version is
selected determines which rtc would be availible.
You cannot have 2 platform drivers with the same name driving different
hardware, as that would cause conflicts if you build a kernel with both drivers.
I see you have config RTC_DRV_M5441x depends on M5441x to enforce
this limitation, but in general, it's encouraged to make drivers build
on as many
platforms as possible, as this tends to reveal bugs.
So why not call the platform device rtc-m5441x now?
Because that would be wrong.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
