Wolfgang Denk schrieb: > Dear Reinhard Meyer, > > In message <[email protected]> you wrote: >> As well as there is a difference between read error and file not found, >> there well might be a difference in clock nonfunctional and time invalid... > > Indeed. > >> But alas, I will make rtc_get not return an error and zero out the tm >> structure instead when the driver KNOWS the date is not correct. > > Why would you do that? This prevents anybody trying to track down > problems from seeing what is really going on. When you retrun the > real (incorrect) data, I can see if the attempt to set the date shows > any affect at all - with your method I don't see anything at all. > So far no AT91SAM9xxx board has a date command in u-boot. The kernel as it is will not set the system time when the offset register is zero. If the register is non-zero the time will be used.
I'm just trying to have the same behaviour in u-boot. Besides your argumentation is flawed: why try to READ the clock when I am going to set it anyway? This reading and the following if just increase the code size :) Now setting the clock still gives the warning (puts() in the driver) that the time is invalid (because the time is read before overwritten). I think that is more irritating. So your suggestions is then to have the driver not say anything at all, just return OK and a bogus value... Reinhard
<<attachment: reinhard_meyer.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
