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
