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
