From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965548AbXCATuW (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:50:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965547AbXCATuW (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:50:22 -0500 Received: from mx0.towertech.it ([213.215.222.73]:51125 "HELO mx0.towertech.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965548AbXCATuU (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:50:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:50:16 +0100 From: Alessandro Zummo To: "Mike Frysinger" Cc: "David Brownell" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, bryan.wu@analog.com, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, "Paul Mundt" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: + blackfin-on-chip-rtc-controller-driver.patch added to -mm tree Message-ID: <20070301205016.078c3b32@inspiron> In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0703011106j7cb3664dx190686b0251cd1fa@mail.gmail.com> References: <200703010848.l218me3e008819@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <200703011039.32876.david-b@pacbell.net> <8bd0f97a0703011106j7cb3664dx190686b0251cd1fa@mail.gmail.com> Organization: Tower Technologies X-Mailer: Sylpheed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:06:49 -0500 "Mike Frysinger" wrote: > > It's unclear why you > > chose to report "pending" (irq issued but not yet acked) since > > that's uselessly transient state on non-polled hardwre. (That > > flag definition came from EFI, a polled firmware RTC.) > > because other drivers do ? there is no documentation here that covers > what exactly the read_alarm function in the rtc_class_ops is supposed > to do which leaves it up to people looking at other drivers there has been a bit of confusion on this topic. I think it's now the time to exactly define what should happen with alarms and how they should be reported back to the class. I'm usually inclined to agree with David on that particular topic :) other than that, I would like to remove the /proc interface in the future, so users are advised not to count on it and device authors to not add properties. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it