Re: hwclock still not working
Nikita Schmidt <cetus@snowball.ucd.ie> writes:
> I believe the PC approach is rotten. A user process is not supposed to
> talk to hardware directly - that's what kernel drivers are for. Neither
No disagreement here. Although SVGALib and XFree86 do this :-)
> However, I don't see why Configure.help should mention things like "CMOS
> clock" - are people really more familiar with "CMOS clock" rather than
> "realtime clock"? While both terms are a bit inappropriate, "CMOS
It is referred to as "Enhanced realtime clock." It mentions nothing
about being the battery clock or even having anything to do with
keeping track of dates. From its description, I thought it was simply
a highly-precise timer or something.
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming jgoerzen@complete.org |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
Reply to: