[PATCH] rtc: mv: reset date if after year 2038

[andrew@lunn.ch (Andrew Lunn)]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:26:06PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dates after January, 19th 2038 are badly handled by userspace due to
> the time being stored on 32 bits. This causes issues on some Marvell
> platform on which the RTC is initialized by default to a date that's
> beyond 2038, causing a really weird behavior of the RTC.
> 
> In order to avoid that, reset the date to a sane value if the RTC is
> beyond 2038.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-mv.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mv.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mv.c
> index d536c59..f124dc6 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mv.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mv.c
> @@ -222,6 +222,7 @@ static int __init mv_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct resource *res;
>  	struct rtc_plat_data *pdata;
>  	u32 rtc_time;
> +	u32 rtc_date;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -257,6 +258,17 @@ static int __init mv_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * A date after January 19th, 2038 does not fit on 32 bits and
> +	 * will confuse the kernel and userspace. Reset to a sane date
> +	 * (January 1st, 2013) if we're after 2038.
> +	 */

Hi Thomas

Would it be better to reset back to 01/01/1970? When we do reach 32
bit rollover, and assuming the world continues to exist, it has a
better chance of being right than 01/01/2013.

       Andrew