On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 18:59, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/b485fe5ea1008db02abff9ef15be4f31b52df4f7
> rtc/m41t80: use rtc_valid_tm() to check returned tm
>
> Use rtc_valid_tm() to check returned struct rtc_time *tm - it can avoid
> returning wrong tm value.
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
> index 6dc4e62..66377f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
> @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int m41t80_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *t)
> t->time.tm_isdst = -1;
> t->enabled = !!(reg[M41T80_REG_ALARM_MON] & M41T80_ALMON_AFE);
> t->pending = !!(reg[M41T80_REG_FLAGS] & M41T80_FLAGS_AF);
> - return 0;
> + return rtc_valid_tm(t);
warning: passing argument 1 of ‘rtc_valid_tm’ from incompatible pointer type
`t' is of type `struct rtc_wkalrm *', not `struct rtc_time *'.
Probably the intention was:
return rtc_valid_tm(&t->time);
??
> }
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
2010/8/13 Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 18:59, Linux Kernel Mailing List
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/b485fe5ea1008db02abff9ef15be4f31b52df4f7
>
>> rtc/m41t80: use rtc_valid_tm() to check returned tm
>>
>> Use rtc_valid_tm() to check returned struct rtc_time *tm - it can avoid
>> returning wrong tm value.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
>> index 6dc4e62..66377f3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
>
>> @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int m41t80_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *t)
>> t->time.tm_isdst = -1;
>> t->enabled = !!(reg[M41T80_REG_ALARM_MON] & M41T80_ALMON_AFE);
>> t->pending = !!(reg[M41T80_REG_FLAGS] & M41T80_FLAGS_AF);
>> - return 0;
>> + return rtc_valid_tm(t);
>
> warning: passing argument 1 of ‘rtc_valid_tm’ from incompatible pointer type
>
> `t' is of type `struct rtc_wkalrm *', not `struct rtc_time *'.
> Probably the intention was:
>
> return rtc_valid_tm(&t->time);
Okay, thank you point this warning.
Andrew ,
Could you please fix this warning directly for me?
'return rtc_valid_tm(t)' should be insteaded by 'return
rtc_valid_tm(&t->time);'.
thanks!
>
> ??
>
>> }
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
--
*linux-arm-kernel mailing list
mail addr:[email protected]
you can subscribe by:
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
* linux-arm-NUC900 mailing list
mail addr:[email protected]
main web: https://groups.google.com/group/NUC900
you can subscribe it by sending me mail:
[email protected]
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:43:38 +0800, Wan ZongShun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2010/8/13 Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>:
> >> - return 0;
> >> + return rtc_valid_tm(t);
> >
> > warning: passing argument 1 of ‘rtc_valid_tm’ from incompatible pointer type
> >
> > `t' is of type `struct rtc_wkalrm *', not `struct rtc_time *'.
> > Probably the intention was:
> >
> > return rtc_valid_tm(&t->time);
>
> Okay, thank you point this warning.
>
> Andrew ,
>
> Could you please fix this warning directly for me?
> 'return rtc_valid_tm(t)' should be insteaded by 'return
> rtc_valid_tm(&t->time);'.
No, t->time does not contain complete date/time. It just holds some
alarm settings and -1 for some fields.
So rtc_valid_tm(&t->time) will always returns -EINVAL.
The correct fix would be just reverting rtc_valid_tm here.
------------------------------------------------------
From: Atsushi Nemoto <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH] rtc: m41t80: do not use rtc_valid_tm in m41t80_rtc_read_alarm
The commit b485fe5ea ("rtc/m41t80: use rtc_valid_tm() to check
returned tm") added rtc_valid_tm to m41t80_rtc_read_alarm() but it was
wrong while the t->time does not contain complete date/time.
This patch also fix a warning:
warning: passing argument 1 of ‘rtc_valid_tm’ from incompatible pointer type
Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <[email protected]>
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
index 66377f3..d60557c 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-m41t80.c
@@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int m41t80_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *t)
t->time.tm_isdst = -1;
t->enabled = !!(reg[M41T80_REG_ALARM_MON] & M41T80_ALMON_AFE);
t->pending = !!(reg[M41T80_REG_FLAGS] & M41T80_FLAGS_AF);
- return rtc_valid_tm(t);
+ return 0;
}
static struct rtc_class_ops m41t80_rtc_ops = {
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay? ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?