Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807182333150.41@nippy.intranet>
References: <20180619140229.3615110-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180619140229.3615110-2-arnd@arndb.de>
 <CAMuHMdXHUwbD4ZBuQz-xYQO=QdYdPS=j=oLWBet6B7PrGEkT9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807182201560.41@nippy.intranet> <CAK8P3a0OBVu-o6kFCS=gV83EcH9ba9QYGZBBhB9D8cJrf=8akA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807182333150.41@nippy.intranet>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:26:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3azDB5WsQWTKOSmXNqycTxz0qXtowS61_=zUsnMo+EXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [v2] m68k: mac: use time64_t in RTC handling
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Joshua Thompson <funaho@jurai.org>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>,
        Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>,
        Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

>>
>> -static long via_read_time(void)
>> +static time64_t via_read_time(void)
>>  {
>>         union {
>>                 __u8 cdata[4];
>> -               long idata;
>> +               __u32 idata;
>>         } result, last_result;
>> +       time64_t ret;
>
> ret isn't used.
>
>>         int count = 1;
>>
>>         via_pram_command(0x81, &last_result.cdata[3]);
>> @@ -279,12 +280,8 @@ static long via_read_time(void)
>>                 via_pram_command(0x89, &result.cdata[1]);
>>                 via_pram_command(0x8D, &result.cdata[0]);
>>
>> -               if (result.idata == last_result.idata) {
>> -                       if (result.idata < RTC_OFFSET)
>> -                               result.idata += 0x100000000ull;
>> -
>> -                       return result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;
>> -               }
>> +               if (result.idata == last_result.idata)
>> +                       return (time64_t(result.idata) - RTC_OFFSET);
>>
>
> Did you mean to write,
>
>                         return (time64_t)result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;
>
> ?

Right, I should have at least tried to build it again.

      Arnd