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;
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:53:46 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>,
        "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: da9063: set range
Message-ID: <20190401185346.GP3430@piout.net>
References: <20190321101557.26857-1-alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
 <20190401084143.uqbiktkt2vltgrxa@ninjato>
 <CAMuHMdW_Gz4qaRXFeW-h7vNxJ5RwjDXDP4oZZcUaYHcqEC75bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <VI1PR10MB235254A7A95F4045A5410D1EFE550@VI1PR10MB2352.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAMuHMdVsp86n_1+c6NZpCG1MwcAzEH7rgaESHfYESb5YcLk6zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190401132109.GA4570@kunai>
 <CAMuHMdV79HAn8jpodQcripAViCqBh3rFGZ39oEiSiP8nC+UyTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190401150741.vwqzzngnma4jvkid@ninjato>
 <20190401151628.GK3430@piout.net>
 <20190401155204.GA5964@kunai>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190401155204.GA5964@kunai>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/04/2019 17:52:04+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > [==========] Running 7 tests from 2 test cases.
> > > [ RUN      ] rtc.date_read
> > > rtctest.c:49:rtc.date_read:Current RTC date/time is 01/01/2000 04:06:40.
> > > [       OK ] rtc.date_read
> > > [ RUN      ] rtc.uie_read
> > > 
> > > And here it blocks forever. Any pointers?
> > >
> > 
> > This means that you don't get any interrupt from your RTC (and that I
> 
> Thought so. Well, somehow makes sense that no interrupt gets through,
> and not only alarm interrupts...
> 
> > have to fix the timeout for uie_read).
> 
> :) I am happy to test.
> 

Well, seeing the code, I actually remembered that this test is still
there to ensure the core will properly block. If you remove that test,
the other ones should all timeout.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com