On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/06/2017 at 20:57:05 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexandre Belloni >> <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I understand this may not fit your debugging needs but what about pretty >> > printing time64_t and using rtc_tm_to_time64? >> >> There are two downsides as I can see: >> 1) conversion to and from just for that; > > Those are almost all debug messages, I would be fine with that. Yeah, but the problem is to pass the reference. All dances around will uglify the code. (Obviously we can't pass timespec64/time64_t or anything longer than 32 bits as is in %p extension) >> 2) if you look closer to the patches rtc-* you may find cases where >> wday is also printed so, struct rtc_time still will be in use. > (And you missed two in rtc-mcp795.c). Honestly, nobody cares about wday, > you may as well leave it out. Oops, thanks, indeed. Okay, I will leave it for now with dropped wday until someone comes with strong opinion why it should be there. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
