On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 16:47 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> Recently I have noticed too many users of struct rtc_time that printing >> its content field by field. >> >> In this series I introduce %pt[dt][rv] specifier to make life a bit >> easier. >> >> There are still users of detailed output of the struct rtc_time, but we >> can introduce an additional extension for them in the future if needed, >> otherwise they might be converted to the proposed output format. >> >> Some of the changes slightly modify the output. In those cases we are on >> the safe side since they are pure debug. Nevertheless I tried to leave >> numbers to be the same or quite close: in some cases year is printed + >> 1900, though month is left in the range [0,11] instead of [1,12]. >> >> I didn't compile everything there, though I did a basic smoke test on >> some x86 hardware. So, I rely on kbuild test robot as well :-) >> >> Most of the users currently are RTC drivers, thus the patch series is >> assumed to go via RTC tree. > > What I wonder about this series is how much > larger it makes a typical kernel and how > often multiple rtc clocks are built for a > single kernel? We may hide it under CONFIG_RTC_??? if we want to reduce kernel for non RTC cases. > What is the size impact on an embedded kernel > that uses a single rtc driver? I would > trivia: Actually not. See my answer to Arnd. I have patches for 4 users of struct tm, but it should be converted first to struct rtc_time first (otherwise it might uglify the code due to endianess of tm_year memeber) > > Aren't there also uses of struct tm that are > nearly identical? > > e.g.: drivers/usb/host/xhci-tegra.c -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
