Re: [PATCH 6/9] rtc-pcf2123: avoid resetting the clock if possible
From: Alexandre Belloni
Date: Tue Dec 01 2015 - 16:04:28 EST
On 01/12/2015 at 12:23:51 -0800, Joshua Clayton wrote :
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:25:12 +0100
> Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 04/11/2015 at 07:36:37 -0800, Joshua Clayton wrote :
> > > + ret = pcf2123_rtc_read_time(dev, &tm);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + if (rtc_valid_tm(&tm) < 0) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "retrieved date/time is not
> > > valid.\n");
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I would remove that test as basically, the date/time will only be
> > valid when OSC_HAS_STOPPED is not set.
> >
> OSC_HAS_STOPPED really only protects us in case everything else
> looks good, but we've lost power.
> There are other reasons to check for a valid time.
> Specifically, if there is no communication with the device, the spi
> operation will succeed and return all zeros or all ones.
> Since either of these results in an invalid time, it is a nice way
> to probe whether we really have a pcf2123 compatible device.
>
> I don't think I should remove this test, but I can add a comment
OK but then pcf2123_rtc_read_time actually returns rtc_valid_tm(tm) ;)
The proper course of action is probably to do the OSC_HAS_STOPPED check
in pcf2123_rtc_read_time then you don't even need pcf2123_time_valid().
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/