Hi,
On 27/08/2017 at 13:30:59 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Well, I found your rtc_year_days rather confusing and had to play with
> the arguments until I got it working as expected, so I wanted an inline
> function (or macro) as abstraction from my three callers.
>
> Sadly the naming is rather
On 27/08/2017 at 15:37:51 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > >> +static inline int rtd119x_rtc_year_days(int year)
> > >> +{
> > >> +return rtc_year_days(1, 12, year);
> > >
> > > I'm not sure it is worth wrapping rtc_year_days
> > [snip]
> >
> > Well, I found your rtc_year_days rather confusi
> >> +static inline int rtd119x_rtc_year_days(int year)
> >> +{
> >> + return rtc_year_days(1, 12, year);
> >
> > I'm not sure it is worth wrapping rtc_year_days
> [snip]
>
> Well, I found your rtc_year_days rather confusing and had to play with
> the arguments until I got it working as expected
Hi Alexandre,
Am 27.08.2017 um 11:13 schrieb Alexandre Belloni:
> Not much to add, apart from the spinlock issue already spotted by Andrew.
>
> On 27/08/2017 at 02:33:27 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> +struct rtd119x_rtc {
>> +void __iomem *base;
>> +struct clk *clk;
>> +struct rtc_d
Am 27.08.2017 um 10:27 schrieb Alexandre Belloni:
> On 27/08/2017 at 04:30:08 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 27.08.2017 um 04:05 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
>> By that same argument we could ask why so many drivers (and mine, too)
>> are calling rtc_valid_tm() when __rtc_read_time() calls it again...
Hi Andrew,
Am 27.08.2017 um 05:27 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 04:30:08AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 27.08.2017 um 04:05 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
>>> n Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:33:27AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
+struct rtd119x_rtc {
+ void __iomem *base;
+
Hi,
Not much to add, apart from the spinlock issue already spotted by Andrew.
On 27/08/2017 at 02:33:27 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> +struct rtd119x_rtc {
> + void __iomem *base;
> + struct clk *clk;
> + struct rtc_device *rtcdev;
> + unsigned base_year;
checkpatch complains th
On 27/08/2017 at 04:30:08 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 27.08.2017 um 04:05 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> > n Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:33:27AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> +struct rtd119x_rtc {
> >> + void __iomem *base;
> >> + struct clk *clk;
> >> + struct rtc_device *rtcdev;
> >> + unsigned
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 04:30:08AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 27.08.2017 um 04:05 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> > n Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:33:27AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> +struct rtd119x_rtc {
> >> + void __iomem *base;
> >> + struct clk *clk;
> >> + struct rtc_device *rtcdev;
> >> +
Am 27.08.2017 um 04:05 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> n Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:33:27AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> +struct rtd119x_rtc {
>> +void __iomem *base;
>> +struct clk *clk;
>> +struct rtc_device *rtcdev;
>> +unsigned base_year;
>> +spinlock_t lock;
>
> Where is this lock
n Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:33:27AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Based on QNAP's arch/arm/mach-rtk119x/driver/rtk_rtc_drv.c code and
> mach-rtk119x/driver/dc2vo/fpga/include/mis_reg.h register definitions.
>
> The base year 2014 was observed on all of Zidoo X9S, ProBox2 Ava and
> Beelink Lake I.
>
Based on QNAP's arch/arm/mach-rtk119x/driver/rtk_rtc_drv.c code and
mach-rtk119x/driver/dc2vo/fpga/include/mis_reg.h register definitions.
The base year 2014 was observed on all of Zidoo X9S, ProBox2 Ava and
Beelink Lake I.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber
---
v1 -> v2:
* Dropped open/release in
12 matches
Mail list logo
