Re: split pow(4)

[Tetsuya Isaki <isaki%pastel-flower.jp@localhost>]

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 <isaki%pastel-flower.jp@localhost / isaki%NetBSD.org@localhost>