[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101117121050.9998.89348.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:11:24 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH] x86,
mrst: add explalation for using 1960 as the year offset for vrtc
device
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Explain the reason for the apparently odd choice of year offset so we don't
get more questions about it.
Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-mrst.c | 6 +++++-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mrst.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mrst.c
index 67b6be2..bcd0cf6 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mrst.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mrst.c
@@ -66,7 +66,11 @@ static inline int is_intr(u8 rtc_intr)
* rtc_time's year contains the increment over 1900, but vRTC's YEAR
* register can't be programmed to value larger than 0x64, so vRTC
* driver chose to use 1960 (1970 is UNIX time start point) as the base,
- * and does the translation at read/write time
+ * and does the translation at read/write time.
+ *
+ * Why not just use 1970 as the offset? it's because using 1960 will
+ * make it consistent in leap year setting for both vrtc and low-level
+ * physical rtc devices.
*/
static int mrst_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *time)
{
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists