linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:22:32 +0900
From:	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support

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 <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
> Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>

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;
>  }