On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Hmm, apparently I forgot to update via_read_time(), that one is indeed bogus and now inconsistent with the other functions.
The change in via_write_time() seems at least consistent wtih what we do elsewhere, and using __u32 makes this code more portable. (yes, I realize that 64-bit powermac doesn't use the VIA RTC, but it feels better to write code portably anyway).
As for portability, I think you just contradicted yourself. But I take your point about consistency. So I won't object to adopting __u32.
I'd suggest we do it like below to make it consistent with the rest again, using the 1904..2040 range of dates and no warning for invalid dates.
If you agree, I'll send that as a proper patch.
Geert may instead wish to fixup or revert the patch he has committed already...
Arnddiff --git a/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c b/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c index bf8df47a6d09..8335509969f1 100644 --- a/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c +++ b/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c @@ -255,12 +255,13 @@ static void via_write_pram(int offset, __u8 data)
- is basically any machine with Mac II-style ADB.
*/
-static long via_read_time(void) +static time64_t via_read_time(void) { union { __u8 cdata[4];
long idata;
__u32 idata; } result, last_result;time64_t ret;
ret isn't used.
int count = 1; via_pram_command(0x81, &last_result.cdata[3]);@@ -279,12 +280,8 @@ static long via_read_time(void) via_pram_command(0x89, &result.cdata[1]); via_pram_command(0x8D, &result.cdata[0]);
if (result.idata == last_result.idata) {if (result.idata < RTC_OFFSET)result.idata += 0x100000000ull;return result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;}
if (result.idata == last_result.idata)return (time64_t(result.idata) - RTC_OFFSET);
Did you mean to write,
return (time64_t)result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;
?
--