From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
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
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 11:33:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190402093359.GB2960@kunai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190402085325.GT3430@piout.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2580 bytes --]
Hi Alexandre,
> I had a look at the driver and I guess you have a 9063AD while Steve
> uses another model.
>
> That explains why you need the uie_unsupported flag. The 9063AD can only
> do alarms on a minute boundary.
Bingo! Nice catch. I was on the wrong track because we have an early
boot quirk handling for the DA on this platform and I was searching
there for side effects. Makes all sense now. Thanks a lot for your help!
> Since the move to hr_timer, the uie are done using the classic alarm or
> they are emulated by the core. This improved the situation for many RTCs
> that don't have a separate UIE but this made it worse for a few (and
> this is an example). I have plan to work on this but didn't have the
> time yet.
I understand. That explains why my RTC knowledge from a few years ago
feels so outdated :)
> I suggest the following patch:
>
> ===
>
> From 37b2ab7d537e76e42bde64cf4b57701b0ed8e8cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 10:06:46 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] rtc: da9063: set uie_unsupported when relevant
>
> The DA9063AD doesn't support alarms on any seconds and its granularity is
> the minute. Set uie_unsupported in that case.
>
> Reported-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Please use this address:
Reported-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
And probably Geert wants his "+renesas" address, too:
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c
> index 1b792bcea3c7..53e690b0f3a2 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c
> @@ -475,6 +475,9 @@ static int da9063_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> da9063_data_to_tm(data, &rtc->alarm_time, rtc);
> rtc->rtc_sync = false;
>
> + if (config->rtc_data_start != RTC_SEC)
> + rtc->rtc_dev->uie_unsupported = 1;
> +
I think we should have a comment here, like:
/* FIXME: Make use of the TICK interrupt once the RTC core supports it */
So, this helps the UIE test:
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
And I guess we have to live with two of the alarm tests failing because
of the minute granularity?
Regards,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-02 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-21 10:15 [PATCH 1/2] rtc: da9063: set range Alexandre Belloni
2019-03-21 10:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] rtc: da9063: switch to rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 Alexandre Belloni
2019-03-22 15:28 ` Steve Twiss
2019-04-01 8:43 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-01 12:42 ` Steve Twiss
2019-03-22 15:16 ` [PATCH 1/2] rtc: da9063: set range Steve Twiss
2019-04-01 8:41 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-01 8:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-04-01 12:39 ` Steve Twiss
2019-04-01 12:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-04-01 13:00 ` Steve Twiss
2019-04-01 13:21 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-01 13:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-04-01 15:07 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-01 15:16 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-01 15:52 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-01 18:53 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-01 19:34 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-02 8:53 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-02 9:33 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2019-04-02 9:51 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-02 10:33 ` Steve Twiss
2019-04-02 10:42 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-02 11:14 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-04-02 11:52 ` Steve Twiss
2019-04-02 9:37 ` Steve Twiss
2019-04-02 10:30 ` Wolfram Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190402093359.GB2960@kunai \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=Support.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).