From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756076AbbE3WVu (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2015 18:21:50 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:33673 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751093AbbE3WVo (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2015 18:21:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 00:21:42 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Jan Kardell , Alessandro Zummo , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, LKML , Vincent Donnefort , Dan Carpenter , oen@telliq.com Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2] rtc: pcf8563 fix: return -EINVAL if we read an invalid time. Message-ID: <20150530222142.GM2185@piout.net> References: <1432730896-13423-1-git-send-email-jan.kardell@telliq.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 31/05/2015 at 00:16:39 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote : > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Jan Kardell wrote: > > Return -EINVAL if the voltage low bit is set to avoid getting a bogus > > time at boot. > > There was a comment stating that util-linux hwclock refuses to set a > > new time if we return an error code on read, but at least the current > > version do set the time as expected. Remove the comment and the check > > for valid time, and let the rtc core check it for us. > > > > Changes in v2: Remove the test for invalid time. Change dev_err to > > dev_info when voltage low is set. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kardell > > --- > > drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c | 9 ++------- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c > > index 0ba7e59..6ce0a86 100644 > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c > > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > > > -#define DRV_VERSION "0.4.3" > > +#define DRV_VERSION "0.4.4" > > Why do you need that? > Isn't the kernel version enough? :) > That's also what I'm thinking but I don't care enough to ask people to remove those. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com