From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout3.samsung.com (mailout3.samsung.com. [203.254.224.33]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ui7si519469pab.0.2016.01.26.18.22.34 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:22:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from epcpsbgr3.samsung.com (u143.gpu120.samsung.co.kr [203.254.230.143]) by mailout3.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0O1L01VP0ALLLR20@mailout3.samsung.com> for rtc-linux@googlegroups.com; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:22:33 +0900 (KST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:22:32 +0900 From: Andi Shyti To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi , Alexandre Belloni , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Laxman Dewangan , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support Message-id: <20160127022232.GH14296@samsunx.samsung> References: <1453836020-29579-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1453836020-29579-7-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In-reply-to: <1453836020-29579-7-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:20:16PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only > these differences: > > 0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different. > > 1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the > alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that. > > 2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while > for MAX77802 is 0..199. > > 3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers > while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs. > > 5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs). > > There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks > but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended > to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers. > > Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti Just a nitpick, though. > -static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data) > +static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data, > + struct max77686_rtc_info *info) > { > data[RTC_SEC] = tm->tm_sec; > data[RTC_MIN] = tm->tm_min; > @@ -178,13 +240,19 @@ static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data) > data[RTC_WEEKDAY] = 1 << tm->tm_wday; > data[RTC_DATE] = tm->tm_mday; > data[RTC_MONTH] = tm->tm_mon + 1; > - data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0; > > - if (tm->tm_year < 100) { > - pr_warn("RTC cannot handle the year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n", > - 1900 + tm->tm_year); > - return -EINVAL; > + if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) { > + data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0; > + > + if (tm->tm_year < 100) { > + pr_warn("RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n", > + 1900 + tm->tm_year); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } else { > + data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year; > } > + This can be written als as: if (info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) { data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year; return 0; } [ ... the rest without any indentation ...] We make also Krzysztof happy by avoiding the if (!...) > return 0; > } -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.