From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Glass Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:29:23 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/10] new rtc methods, rtc command, and tests In-Reply-To: References: <20200504212032.3759-1-rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk> <20200519220117.24448-1-rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Rasmus, On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:40, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > On 20/05/2020 00.01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > I need access to registers other than just the timekeeping ones of the > > pcf2127, so I wanted to implement ->read8 and ->write8. But for > > testing these it appeared there was no convenient way to invoke those > > from the shell, so I also ended up adding such a command. > > > > Also, it seemed more natural to provide array variants that can read > > or write several registers at once, so rtc_ops is expanded a bit. > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > - Use simply "read" and "write" instead of "read8_array", > > "write8_array", both for functions and methods, as suggested by > > Simon. > > Urgh. The name rtc_read() is already used for a local helper by a number > of rtc drivers (also rtc_write, for somewhat fewer drivers). So I can > still call the methods ->read and ->write, but the functions will need > another name. Probably dm_rtc_read/dm_rtc_write, since this is only for > DM-enabled drivers anyway, and matches the existing dm_rtc_get/dm_rtc_set. The conflict is OK, since at some point those drivers will be updated to DM or removed. I'd rather avoid the dm_ prefix if not necessary. Regards, Simon