mrg@eterna.com.au wrote:

>    > .. i don't really see why "mcclock" is a better name.
>    
>    Just some other ports use the name, and "rtc" looks too generic
>    (mostek is also rtc) etc?
> 
> iirc, "rtc" is the name of the OFW node?  it seems OK to me - the pain
> of making everyone update their configs does not seem worth it...

Okay, I agree it's worth to keep device names in config files,
but then is it also better to keep current internal function
(match/attach etc.) names? i.e. how about the following changes?

in kernel config files:
---
clock* at sbus? slot ? offset ?
clock* at ebus?
rtc*   at ebus?
---

and in files.sparc64:
---
device clock: mk48txx
attach clock at sbus with mkclock_sbus
attach clock at ebus with mkclock_ebus
file   arch/sparc64/dev/mkclock.c              clock

device rtc: mc146818
attach rtc at ebus with mcclock_ebus
file   arch/sparc64/dev/mcclock.c              rtc
---

Or should we keep all existing names as much as possible?
---
Izumi Tsutsui