Re: split pow(4)

[email protected] (Minoura Makoto) Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:11:15 +0900
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.ports.x68k
Message-ID <[email protected]>
// Yeah, it was originally written by me more than 15 years
// ago (my first kernel code! wow!). thanks for improving it.

Perhaps, pow(4) is not a pseudo device.  If we ignore
backward compatibility some part of pow(4) job should
pushed out to the userland (via sram(4)); the remaining part
could go to rtc(4), or it's child device?

-- 
Minoura Makoto <[email protected]>