Hello Krzysztof,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27.01.2016 04:20, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
>> data[RTC_MONTH] = tm->tm_mon + 1;
>> - data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
>>
>> - if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
>> - pr_warn("RTC cannot handle the year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
>> - 1900 + tm->tm_year);
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
>
> I don't like all these inverted checks. They are error-prone. This is
> why I propose different name. However since you want to stick to this
> name of this property, then easier to read would be:
>
> if (info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
> data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year;
> } else {
> max77686-stuff...
> }
> Can you reverse it here and in other places?
>
Fair enough, I'll reverse the logic so is more natural and also do an
early return as Andi suggested.
> The patch beside that is okay and works fine:
>
> Tested on Trats2 (max77686):
> Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> BR,
> Krzysztof
>
Best regards,
Javier
