On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hmm, apparently I forgot to update via_read_time(), that one
> is indeed bogus and now inconsistent with the other functions.
>
> The change in via_write_time() seems at least consistent wtih what we do
> elsewhere, and using __u32 makes this code more portable. (yes, I
> realize that 64-bit powermac doesn't use the VIA RTC, but it feels
> better to write code portably anyway).
>
As for portability, I think you just contradicted yourself. But I take
your point about consistency. So I won't object to adopting __u32.
> I'd suggest we do it like below to make it consistent with the
> rest again, using the 1904..2040 range of dates and no warning
> for invalid dates.
>
> If you agree, I'll send that as a proper patch.
>
Geert may instead wish to fixup or revert the patch he has committed
already...
> Arnd
>
> diff --git a/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c b/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c
> index bf8df47a6d09..8335509969f1 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c
> @@ -255,12 +255,13 @@ static void via_write_pram(int offset, __u8 data)
> * is basically any machine with Mac II-style ADB.
> */
>
> -static long via_read_time(void)
> +static time64_t via_read_time(void)
> {
> union {
> __u8 cdata[4];
> - long idata;
> + __u32 idata;
> } result, last_result;
> + time64_t ret;
ret isn't used.
> int count = 1;
>
> via_pram_command(0x81, &last_result.cdata[3]);
> @@ -279,12 +280,8 @@ static long via_read_time(void)
> via_pram_command(0x89, &result.cdata[1]);
> via_pram_command(0x8D, &result.cdata[0]);
>
> - if (result.idata == last_result.idata) {
> - if (result.idata < RTC_OFFSET)
> - result.idata += 0x100000000ull;
> -
> - return result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;
> - }
> + if (result.idata == last_result.idata)
> + return (time64_t(result.idata) - RTC_OFFSET);
>
Did you mean to write,
return (time64_t)result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;
?
--
