From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tanwar, Rahul" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] x86/rtc: Add option to skip using RTC Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:37:38 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20190822090208.GJ30120@smile.fi.intel.com> <25f6947d-7ba0-c23c-25aa-c4c4173da6b0@linux.intel.com> <20190822130429.GN30120@smile.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190822130429.GN30120@smile.fi.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, tony.luck@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qi-ming.wu@intel.com, cheol.yong.kim@intel.com, rahul.tanwar@intel.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Andy, On 22/8/2019 9:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 05:26:33PM +0800, Tanwar, Rahul wrote: >> On 22/8/2019 5:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:44:03PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote: >>>> Use a newly introduced optional "status" property of "motorola,mc146818" >>>> compatible DT node to determine if RTC is supported. Skip read/write from >>>> RTC device only when this node is present and status is "disabled". In all >>>> other cases, proceed as before. >>> Can't we rather update ->get_wallclock() and ->set_wallclock() based on this? >> >> get_wallclock() and set_wallclock() are function pointers of platform_ops >> >> which are initialized to mach_get_cmos_time() and mach_set_rtc_mmss() >> >> at init time. Since adding a new platform to override these functions is >> >> discouraged, so the only way is to modify RTC get/set functions. > Shouldn't it be platform agnostic code? > So, my point is, instead of hacking two functions, perhaps better to avoid them > at all. Sorry, i could not understand your point. The changes are platform agnostic i.e. it doesn't break existing use cases. Are you recommending to add a new platform and make changes there ? Regards, Rahul > >