Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:01:58 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To:     Esteban Blanc <eblanc@baylibre.com>
Cc:     linus.walleij@linaro.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org,
        a.zummo@towertech.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        jpanis@baylibre.com, jneanne@baylibre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH INTERNAL v1 1/3] rtc: tps6594: add driver for TPS6594
 PMIC RTC
Message-ID: <20230313110158f5c27b63@mail.local>
References: <20230224133129.887203-1-eblanc@baylibre.com>
 <20230224133129.887203-2-eblanc@baylibre.com>
 <ZAcbJxrNtWTTTSjR@mail.local>
 <CR556BV2M4I4.2L3LLJ8V1I352@burritosblues>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CR556BV2M4I4.2L3LLJ8V1I352@burritosblues>
Precedence: bulk

On 13/03/2023 10:18:45+0100, Esteban Blanc wrote:
> On Tue Mar 7, 2023 at 12:08 PM CET, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 24/02/2023 14:31:27+0100, Esteban Blanc wrote:
> > > +struct tps6594_rtc {
> > > +   struct rtc_device *rtc;
> > > +};
> >
> > Is the struct actually useful?
> 
> Good catch, it's not. I will remove it for V2.
> 
> (...)
> 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Gets current tps6594 RTC time and date parameters.
> > > + *
> > > + * The RTC's time/alarm representation is not what gmtime(3) requires
> > > + * Linux to use:
> > > + *
> > > + *  - Months are 1..12 vs Linux 0-11
> > > + *  - Years are 0..99 vs Linux 1900..N (we assume 21st century)
> > > + */
> >
> > I don't find this comment to be particularly useful.
> 
> Ok. I propose that I add 2 constants for the -1 and +100 in the month and year
> calculation. This way, without the comment the computation would be a
> bit more self explanatory.
> What do you think?

I don't think this is necessary, keep -1 for the month and +100 for the
year, those are very common operations in the subsystem and don't really
need any explanation

> 
> (...)
> 
> > > +static int tps6594_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > +   struct tps6594 *tps6594;
> > > +   struct tps6594_rtc *tps_rtc;
> > > +   int irq;
> > > +   int ret;
> > > +
> > > +   tps6594 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > > +
> > > +   tps_rtc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct tps6594_rtc),
> > > +                          GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +   if (!tps_rtc)
> > > +           return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +   tps_rtc->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
> > > +   if (IS_ERR(tps_rtc->rtc))
> > > +           return PTR_ERR(tps_rtc->rtc);
> > > +
> > > +   /* Enable crystal oscillator */
> > > +   ret = regmap_set_bits(tps6594->regmap, TPS6594_REG_RTC_CTRL_2,
> > > +                         TPS6594_BIT_XTAL_EN);
> > > +   if (ret < 0)
> > > +           return ret;
> > > +
> > > +   /* Start rtc */
> > > +   ret = regmap_set_bits(tps6594->regmap, TPS6594_REG_RTC_CTRL_1,
> > > +                         TPS6594_BIT_STOP_RTC);
> > > +   if (ret < 0)
> > > +           return ret;
> >
> > Do that (XTAL_EN and clearing STOP) only once the time is known to be
> > set to a correct value so read_time doesn't have a chance to return a
> > bogus value.
> >
> 
> (...)
> 
> I understand your point, however I'm not sure of the canonical way to do
> this. Simply calling `tps6594_rtc_set_time` is enough?

Yeah, let userspace set the time and start the rtc at that point.


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