[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51BB6D18.3010806@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:20:56 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] RFC: rtc: hctosys: support rtc_read_timeval() for
high precision clocks
On 06/14/2013 09:52 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Some RTCs do provide a higher precision than seconds. Add support for them
> by trying rtc_read_timeval() before using rtc_read_time() to get the time
> in the hctosys mechanism.
>
>
[snip]
> + rc = rtc_read_timeval(rtc, &tv);
> + if (rc || (!tv.tv_sec && !tv.tv_usec)) {
> + rc = rtc_read_time(rtc, &now);
> + if (unlikely(rc)) {
> + dev_err(rtc->dev.parent,
> + "rtc core: error reading time from RTC: %d\n",
> + rc);
> + return;
> + }
> + rtc_tm_to_time(&now, &ts.tv_sec);
> + ts.tv_nsec = NSEC_PER_SEC >> 1;
> + } else {
> + rtc_time_to_tm(tv.tv_sec, &now);
> + ts.tv_sec = tv.tv_sec;
> + ts.tv_nsec = tv.tv_usec*NSEC_PER_USEC;
Yea, this sort of fallback logic should be centralized in the RTC layer
rather then in the individual users.
Might be easiest to modify the rtc_read_timeval() interface to try the
ops->read_timeval() operation and do the fallback to rtc_read_time()
internally.
thanks
-john
--
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