On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 16/08/2023 06:39:30-0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Some alarm timers are based on time offsets, not on absolute times.
> > In some situations, the amount of time that can be scheduled in the
> > future is limited. This may result in a refusal to suspend the system,
> > causing substantial battery drain.
> >
> > Some RTC alarm drivers remedy the situation by setting the alarm time
> > to the maximum supported time if a request for an out-of-range timeout
> > is made. This is not really desirable since it may result in unexpected
> > early wakeups.
> >
> > To reduce the impact of this problem, let RTC drivers report the maximum
> > supported alarm timer offset. The code setting alarm timers can then
> > decide if it wants to reject setting alarm timers to a larger value, if it
> > wants to implement recurring alarms until the actually requested alarm
> > time is met, or if it wants to accept the limited alarm time.
> >
> > Only introduce the necessary variable into struct rtc_device.
> > Code to set and use the variable will follow with subsequent patches.
> >
> > Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/rtc.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rtc.h b/include/linux/rtc.h
> > index 1fd9c6a21ebe..b6d000ab1e5e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rtc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rtc.h
> > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ struct rtc_device {
> >
> > time64_t range_min;
> > timeu64_t range_max;
> > + timeu64_t range_max_offset;
>
> While range_min and range_max are for the wall clock time, I would
> prefer using a name that would clearly mark this as an alarm related
> variable.
Sure, no problem. Do you have a suggestion ? alarm_range_max or
alarm_range_max_offset, maybe ? I'd also be happy to use some other
term for 'offset' if you have a suggestion.
Thanks,
Guenter
