[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: split pow(4)
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 <isaki%pastel-flower.jp@localhost / isaki%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Main Index |
Thread Index |