[PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[Alexandre Belloni]

Switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/rtc_register_device. This allow or
further improvement and simplifies ftrtc010_rtc_remove().

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
index af8d6beae20c..165d0b62db00 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
@@ -166,14 +166,18 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (!rtc->rtc_base)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
+	rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_allocate_device(dev);
+	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev))
+		return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
+
+	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
+
 	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
 			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
 	if (unlikely(ret))
 		return ret;
 
-	rtc->rtc_dev = rtc_device_register(pdev->name, dev,
-					   &ftrtc010_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
-	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(rtc->rtc_dev);
+	return rtc_register_device(rtc->rtc_dev);
 }
 
 static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -184,7 +188,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->extclk);
 	if (!IS_ERR(rtc->pclk))
 		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->pclk);
-	rtc_device_unregister(rtc->rtc_dev);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[Alexandre Belloni]

Switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/rtc_register_device. This allow or
further improvement and simplifies ftrtc010_rtc_remove().

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
index af8d6beae20c..165d0b62db00 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
@@ -166,14 +166,18 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (!rtc->rtc_base)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
+	rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_allocate_device(dev);
+	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev))
+		return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
+
+	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
+
 	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
 			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
 	if (unlikely(ret))
 		return ret;
 
-	rtc->rtc_dev = rtc_device_register(pdev->name, dev,
-					   &ftrtc010_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
-	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(rtc->rtc_dev);
+	return rtc_register_device(rtc->rtc_dev);
 }
 
 static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -184,7 +188,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->extclk);
 	if (!IS_ERR(rtc->pclk))
 		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->pclk);
-	rtc_device_unregister(rtc->rtc_dev);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 2/3] rtc: ftrtc010: handle dates after 2106

[Alexandre Belloni]

Use correct types for offset and time and use
rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 to handle dates after 2106 properly.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
index 165d0b62db00..2cdc78ffeb17 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 {
 	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 
-	unsigned int  days, hour, min, sec;
-	unsigned long offset, time;
+	u32 days, hour, min, sec, offset;
+	timeu64_t time;
 
 	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
 	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 
 	time = offset + days * 86400 + hour * 3600 + min * 60 + sec;
 
-	rtc_time_to_tm(time, tm);
+	rtc_time64_to_tm(time, tm);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -92,13 +92,13 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 {
 	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
-	unsigned int sec, min, hour, day;
-	unsigned long offset, time;
+	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
+	timeu64_t time;
 
 	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	rtc_tm_to_time(tm, &time);
+	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
 
 	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
 	min = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 2/3] rtc: ftrtc010: handle dates after 2106

[Alexandre Belloni]

Use correct types for offset and time and use
rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 to handle dates after 2106 properly.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
index 165d0b62db00..2cdc78ffeb17 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 {
 	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 
-	unsigned int  days, hour, min, sec;
-	unsigned long offset, time;
+	u32 days, hour, min, sec, offset;
+	timeu64_t time;
 
 	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
 	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 
 	time = offset + days * 86400 + hour * 3600 + min * 60 + sec;
 
-	rtc_time_to_tm(time, tm);
+	rtc_time64_to_tm(time, tm);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -92,13 +92,13 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 {
 	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
-	unsigned int sec, min, hour, day;
-	unsigned long offset, time;
+	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
+	timeu64_t time;
 
 	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	rtc_tm_to_time(tm, &time);
+	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
 
 	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
 	min = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Alexandre Belloni]

The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
handle it.
The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 13 ++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
index 2cdc78ffeb17..61f798c6101f 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
@@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
 	timeu64_t time;
 
-	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
 
 	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
@@ -120,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops ftrtc010_rtc_ops = {
 
 static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
+	u32 days, hour, min, sec;
 	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc;
 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
 	struct resource *res;
@@ -172,6 +170,15 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
 
+	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
+	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
+	hour = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_HOUR);
+	days = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_DAYS);
+
+	rtc->rtc_dev->range_min = (u64)days * 86400 + hour * 3600 +
+				  min * 60 + sec;
+	rtc->rtc_dev->range_max = U32_MAX + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min;
+
 	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
 			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
 	if (unlikely(ret))
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Alexandre Belloni]

The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
handle it.
The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 13 ++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
index 2cdc78ffeb17..61f798c6101f 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
@@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
 	timeu64_t time;
 
-	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
 
 	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
@@ -120,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops ftrtc010_rtc_ops = {
 
 static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
+	u32 days, hour, min, sec;
 	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc;
 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
 	struct resource *res;
@@ -172,6 +170,15 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
 
+	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
+	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
+	hour = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_HOUR);
+	days = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_DAYS);
+
+	rtc->rtc_dev->range_min = (u64)days * 86400 + hour * 3600 +
+				  min * 60 + sec;
+	rtc->rtc_dev->range_max = U32_MAX + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min;
+
 	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
 			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
 	if (unlikely(ret))
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[Hans Ulli Kroll]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> Switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/rtc_register_device. This allow or
> further improvement and simplifies ftrtc010_rtc_remove().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index af8d6beae20c..165d0b62db00 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -166,14 +166,18 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!rtc->rtc_base)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_allocate_device(dev);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev))
> +		return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
> +
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
> +
>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
>  			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
>  	if (unlikely(ret))
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	rtc->rtc_dev = rtc_device_register(pdev->name, dev,
> -					   &ftrtc010_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
> -	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(rtc->rtc_dev);
> +	return rtc_register_device(rtc->rtc_dev);
>  }
>  
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> @@ -184,7 +188,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->extclk);
>  	if (!IS_ERR(rtc->pclk))
>  		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->pclk);
> -	rtc_device_unregister(rtc->rtc_dev);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@googlemail.com>

[PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[Hans Ulli Kroll]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> Switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/rtc_register_device. This allow or
> further improvement and simplifies ftrtc010_rtc_remove().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index af8d6beae20c..165d0b62db00 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -166,14 +166,18 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!rtc->rtc_base)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_allocate_device(dev);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev))
> +		return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
> +
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
> +
>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
>  			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
>  	if (unlikely(ret))
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	rtc->rtc_dev = rtc_device_register(pdev->name, dev,
> -					   &ftrtc010_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
> -	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(rtc->rtc_dev);
> +	return rtc_register_device(rtc->rtc_dev);
>  }
>  
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> @@ -184,7 +188,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->extclk);
>  	if (!IS_ERR(rtc->pclk))
>  		clk_disable_unprepare(rtc->pclk);
> -	rtc_device_unregister(rtc->rtc_dev);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@googlemail.com>

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rtc: ftrtc010: handle dates after 2106

[Hans Ulli Kroll]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> Use correct types for offset and time and use
> rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 to handle dates after 2106 properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index 165d0b62db00..2cdc78ffeb17 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  {
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>  
> -	unsigned int  days, hour, min, sec;
> -	unsigned long offset, time;
> +	u32 days, hour, min, sec, offset;
> +	timeu64_t time;
>  
>  	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
>  	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  
>  	time = offset + days * 86400 + hour * 3600 + min * 60 + sec;
>  
> -	rtc_time_to_tm(time, tm);
> +	rtc_time64_to_tm(time, tm);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -92,13 +92,13 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  {
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> -	unsigned int sec, min, hour, day;
> -	unsigned long offset, time;
> +	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
> +	timeu64_t time;
>  
>  	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	rtc_tm_to_time(tm, &time);
> +	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
>  
>  	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
>  	min = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@googlemail.com>

[PATCH 2/3] rtc: ftrtc010: handle dates after 2106

[Hans Ulli Kroll]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> Use correct types for offset and time and use
> rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 to handle dates after 2106 properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index 165d0b62db00..2cdc78ffeb17 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  {
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>  
> -	unsigned int  days, hour, min, sec;
> -	unsigned long offset, time;
> +	u32 days, hour, min, sec, offset;
> +	timeu64_t time;
>  
>  	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
>  	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  
>  	time = offset + days * 86400 + hour * 3600 + min * 60 + sec;
>  
> -	rtc_time_to_tm(time, tm);
> +	rtc_time64_to_tm(time, tm);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -92,13 +92,13 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  {
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> -	unsigned int sec, min, hour, day;
> -	unsigned long offset, time;
> +	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
> +	timeu64_t time;
>  
>  	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	rtc_tm_to_time(tm, &time);
> +	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
>  
>  	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
>  	min = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@googlemail.com>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Hans Ulli Kroll]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> handle it.
> The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index 2cdc78ffeb17..61f798c6101f 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
>  	timeu64_t time;
>  
> -	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>  	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
>  
>  	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> @@ -120,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops ftrtc010_rtc_ops = {
>  
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> +	u32 days, hour, min, sec;
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc;
>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	struct resource *res;
> @@ -172,6 +170,15 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
>  
> +	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> +	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> +	hour = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_HOUR);
> +	days = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_DAYS);
> +
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->range_min = (u64)days * 86400 + hour * 3600 +
> +				  min * 60 + sec;
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->range_max = U32_MAX + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min;
> +
>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
>  			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
>  	if (unlikely(ret))
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@googlemail.com>

[PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Hans Ulli Kroll]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> handle it.
> The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index 2cdc78ffeb17..61f798c6101f 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
>  	timeu64_t time;
>  
> -	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>  	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
>  
>  	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> @@ -120,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops ftrtc010_rtc_ops = {
>  
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> +	u32 days, hour, min, sec;
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc;
>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	struct resource *res;
> @@ -172,6 +170,15 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
>  
> +	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> +	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> +	hour = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_HOUR);
> +	days = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_DAYS);
> +
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->range_min = (u64)days * 86400 + hour * 3600 +
> +				  min * 60 + sec;
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->range_max = U32_MAX + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min;
> +
>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
>  			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
>  	if (unlikely(ret))
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@googlemail.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/rtc_register_device. This allow or
> further improvement and simplifies ftrtc010_rtc_remove().
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[PATCH 1/3] rtc: ftrtc010: switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/rtc_register_device. This allow or
> further improvement and simplifies ftrtc010_rtc_remove().
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rtc: ftrtc010: handle dates after 2106

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Use correct types for offset and time and use
> rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 to handle dates after 2106 properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[PATCH 2/3] rtc: ftrtc010: handle dates after 2106

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Use correct types for offset and time and use
> rtc_time64_to_tm/rtc_tm_to_time64 to handle dates after 2106 properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> handle it.

Hmmm. I have datasheets, do you need some input about the hardware?
Something I should patch?

> The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> handle it.

Hmmm. I have datasheets, do you need some input about the hardware?
Something I should patch?

> The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Alexandre Belloni]

On 13/06/2018 11:10:35+0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> > handle it.
> 
> Hmmm. I have datasheets, do you need some input about the hardware?
> Something I should patch?
> 

Nothing to do as you seemed to confirm what I did was OK. I could find
why it was set to 2148 in the first place. Maybe it correspond to the
default days, hours minutes, second values on the SoC.

> > The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

[Alexandre Belloni]

On 13/06/2018 11:10:35+0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> > handle it.
> 
> Hmmm. I have datasheets, do you need some input about the hardware?
> Something I should patch?
> 

Nothing to do as you seemed to confirm what I did was OK. I could find
why it was set to 2148 in the first place. Maybe it correspond to the
default days, hours minutes, second values on the SoC.

> > The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com