Re: split pow(4)
Tetsuya Isaki <[email protected]> Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:50:40 +0900
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.x68k |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <x7obwltq73.wl%[email protected]> |
Minoura-san, At Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:11:15 +0900, Minoura Makoto wrote: > 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? Thank you for comment. I reconsider them. May I break a backward compatibility of rtcalarm(8) (= pow(4) ioctl)? --- Tetsuya Isaki <[email protected] / [email protected]>