Re: split pow(4)

At Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:23:38 +0900,
Minoura Makoto wrote:
> > May I break a backward compatibility of rtcalarm(8)
> > (= pow(4) ioctl)?
> 
> Just my opinion: we could.  It is totally machine-dependent
> API, whose only user might be rtcalarm(8), and probably
> there's no real user.  I even doubt it is known to anyone
> but you and me :)

I agree.
ok, so, may I retire whole of pow(4) device, /dev/pow[01]
device files and rtcalarm(8) completely?  and then, I'm going
to add powsw(4) new device for power switch.
Is there any comments?
---
Tetsuya Isaki <[email protected] / [email protected]>