On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> handle it.
> The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index 2cdc78ffeb17..61f798c6101f 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
> timeu64_t time;
>
> - if (tm->tm_year >= 2148) /* EPOCH Year + 179 */
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
>
> sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> @@ -120,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops ftrtc010_rtc_ops = {
>
> static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> + u32 days, hour, min, sec;
> struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc;
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> struct resource *res;
> @@ -172,6 +170,15 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
>
> + sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> + min = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> + hour = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_HOUR);
> + days = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_DAYS);
> +
> + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min = (u64)days * 86400 + hour * 3600 +
> + min * 60 + sec;
> + rtc->rtc_dev->range_max = U32_MAX + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min;
> +
> ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
> IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
> if (unlikely(ret))
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
