2012-06-21 07:05:01

by devendra.aaru

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] rtc/r9701: avoid second call to the rtc_valid_tm

r9701_get_datetime will call the rtc_valid_tm and it returns the
value returned by rtc_valid_tm, which anyway can be used in the if

so calling rtc_valid_tm is not required.

Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <[email protected]>
---


This change is compiled tested only using gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 on x86_64 (intel core i3).

drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
index 33b6ba0..e6c34c0 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
@@ -138,8 +138,7 @@ static int __devinit r9701_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
* contain invalid values. If so, try to write a default date:
* 2000/1/1 00:00:00
*/
- r9701_get_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt);
- if (rtc_valid_tm(&dt)) {
+ if (r9701_get_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt)) {
dev_info(&spi->dev, "trying to repair invalid date/time\n");
dt.tm_sec = 0;
dt.tm_min = 0;
--
1.7.9.5


2012-06-21 20:51:39

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc/r9701: avoid second call to the rtc_valid_tm

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:34:40 +0530
Devendra Naga <[email protected]> wrote:

> r9701_get_datetime will call the rtc_valid_tm and it returns the
> value returned by rtc_valid_tm, which anyway can be used in the if
>
> so calling rtc_valid_tm is not required.
>
> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <[email protected]>
> ---
>
>
> This change is compiled tested only using gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 on x86_64 (intel core i3).
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
> index 33b6ba0..e6c34c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
> @@ -138,8 +138,7 @@ static int __devinit r9701_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> * contain invalid values. If so, try to write a default date:
> * 2000/1/1 00:00:00
> */
> - r9701_get_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt);
> - if (rtc_valid_tm(&dt)) {
> + if (r9701_get_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt)) {
> dev_info(&spi->dev, "trying to repair invalid date/time\n");
> dt.tm_sec = 0;
> dt.tm_min = 0;

Looks OK.


I think the driver would be better if we were to do this:


From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Subject: drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c: check that r9701_set_datetime() succeeded

When the driver detects that the clock time is invalid, it attempts to
write a sane time into the hardware. We curently assume that everything
is OK is those writes succeeded. But it is better to re-read the time
from the hardware to ensure that the new settings got there OK.

Cc: Devendra Naga <[email protected]>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <[email protected]>
Cc: Anatolij Gustschin <[email protected]>
Cc: Andreas Dumberger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
---

drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff -puN drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c~a drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c~a
+++ a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
@@ -147,7 +147,8 @@ static int __devinit r9701_probe(struct
dt.tm_mon = 0;
dt.tm_year = 100;

- if (r9701_set_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt)) {
+ if (r9701_set_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt) ||
+ r9701_get_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt)) {
dev_err(&spi->dev, "cannot repair RTC register\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
_


But I can't test this :(

2012-06-22 05:45:38

by devendra.aaru

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc/r9701: avoid second call to the rtc_valid_tm

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot for the reply. :-)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Andrew Morton
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:34:40 +0530
> Looks OK.
>
>
> I think the driver would be better if we were to do this:
>
>
> From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Subject: drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c: check that r9701_set_datetime() succeeded
>
> When the driver detects that the clock time is invalid, it attempts to
> write a sane time into the hardware. ?We curently assume that everything
> is OK is those writes succeeded. ?But it is better to re-read the time
> from the hardware to ensure that the new settings got there OK.
>
> Cc: Devendra Naga <[email protected]>
> Cc: Alessandro Zummo <[email protected]>
> Cc: Anatolij Gustschin <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andreas Dumberger <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> ?drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c | ? ?3 ++-
> ?1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -puN drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c~a drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c~a
> +++ a/drivers/rtc/rtc-r9701.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,8 @@ static int __devinit r9701_probe(struct
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?dt.tm_mon ?= 0;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?dt.tm_year = 100;
>
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (r9701_set_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt)) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (r9701_set_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt) ||
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? r9701_get_datetime(&spi->dev, &dt)) {
Yeah, agreed, crosschecking whether we have a valid time set at the
hardware by the r9701_set_datetime.

> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?dev_err(&spi->dev, "cannot repair RTC register\n");
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return -ENODEV;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?}
> _
>
>
> But I can't test this :(

I also dont have the RTC-j9701 hardware :(.

i was thinking of cases like setting / getting of time from ioctl. but
there was no ioctl support inside the driver.

i am really a newbie in kernel, pardon me if i told anything wrong ...

Thanks,
Devendra.