On Dec 4, 2007 11:41 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it should be EINVAL. at least it is wat rtc-cmos does when the value
> is invalid.
in the example rtc test code (Documentation/rtc.txt), would it be
useful to handle EINVAL ? if the freq isnt supported, just say
"hardware
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:56:54 -0500
"Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2007 11:49 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:47:56 -0500
> > "Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > the return of ENOTTY is to say "changing of freq isnt
On Dec 4, 2007 11:49 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:47:56 -0500
> "Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the return of ENOTTY is to say "changing of freq isnt supported", not
> > that the value is invalid. but i can get the same behavior by
> >
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:47:56 -0500
"Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> the return of ENOTTY is to say "changing of freq isnt supported", not
> that the value is invalid. but i can get the same behavior by
> deleting the function as the rtc-dev layer will take care of returning
>
On Dec 4, 2007 11:41 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:29:11 -0500 "Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 2007 11:26 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, I fannly got some
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:29:11 -0500
"Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2007 11:26 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I fannly got some time to review the patches. Seems ok, the
> > only question is...
> >
> >
On Dec 4, 2007 11:26 AM, Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, I fannly got some time to review the patches. Seems ok, the
> only question is...
>
> > static int bfin_irq_set_freq(struct device *dev, int freq)
> > {
> > - struct bfin_rtc
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:08:26 +0800
Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I fannly got some time to review the patches. Seems ok, the
only question is...
> static int bfin_irq_set_freq(struct device *dev, int freq)
> {
> - struct bfin_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> stampit();
>
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:08:26 +0800
Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I fannly got some time to review the patches. Seems ok, the
only question is...
static int bfin_irq_set_freq(struct device *dev, int freq)
{
- struct bfin_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
stampit();
-
On Dec 4, 2007 11:26 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I fannly got some time to review the patches. Seems ok, the
only question is...
static int bfin_irq_set_freq(struct device *dev, int freq)
{
- struct bfin_rtc *rtc =
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:29:11 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:26 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I fannly got some time to review the patches. Seems ok, the
only question is...
static int
On Dec 4, 2007 11:41 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:29:11 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:26 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I fannly got some time to review the
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:47:56 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the return of ENOTTY is to say changing of freq isnt supported, not
that the value is invalid. but i can get the same behavior by
deleting the function as the rtc-dev layer will take care of returning
ENOTTY.
so
On Dec 4, 2007 11:49 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:47:56 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the return of ENOTTY is to say changing of freq isnt supported, not
that the value is invalid. but i can get the same behavior by
deleting the
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:56:54 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:49 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:47:56 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the return of ENOTTY is to say changing of freq isnt supported, not
On Dec 4, 2007 11:41 AM, Alessandro Zummo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it should be EINVAL. at least it is wat rtc-cmos does when the value
is invalid.
in the example rtc test code (Documentation/rtc.txt), would it be
useful to handle EINVAL ? if the freq isnt supported, just say
hardware does
From: Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-bfin.c | 24 +---
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-bfin.c
From: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-bfin.c | 24 +---
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-bfin.c
18 matches
Mail list logo
