| Message ID | 1236783236-10335-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Wolfram Sang wrote: > @@ -534,6 +541,11 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(client->dev.parent); > int want_irq = false; > unsigned char *buf; > + const int bbsqi_bitpos[] = { static const ... > + [ds_1337] = 0, > + [ds_1339] = DS1339_BIT_BBSQI, > + [ds_3231] = DS3231_BIT_BBSQW, > + }; .... otherwise this looks plausible. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hello David, On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:05:02PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > @@ -534,6 +541,11 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(client->dev.parent); > > int want_irq = false; > > unsigned char *buf; > > + const int bbsqi_bitpos[] = { > > static const ... > > > + [ds_1337] = 0, > > + [ds_1339] = DS1339_BIT_BBSQI, > > + [ds_3231] = DS3231_BIT_BBSQW, > > + }; > > .... otherwise this looks plausible. I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, so I better ask: Do you think it is OK? :) Regards, Wolfram
On Wednesday 18 March 2009, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hello David, > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:05:02PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > @@ -534,6 +541,11 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > > struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(client->dev.parent); > > > int want_irq = false; > > > unsigned char *buf; > > > + const int bbsqi_bitpos[] = { > > > > static const ... Meaning: change this to be static const, instead of telling the compiler to allocate a new copy on the stack for each probe(). > > > + [ds_1337] = 0, > > > + [ds_1339] = DS1339_BIT_BBSQI, > > > + [ds_3231] = DS3231_BIT_BBSQW, > > > + }; > > > > .... otherwise this looks plausible. > > I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, so I better ask: Do you > think it is OK? :) If you make that change, yes. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hello David, > > > .... otherwise this looks plausible. > > > > I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, so I better ask: Do you > > think it is OK? :) > > If you make that change, yes. Ah, okay. I knew what the proposed 'static' does; I wasn't sure if your 'otherwise' meant something like 'on the other hand' and was confused. Will submit a new patch in a minute. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c index 7e5155e..ffc0bbb 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ enum ds_type { ds_1338, ds_1339, ds_1340, + ds_3231, m41t00, // rs5c372 too? different address... }; @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ enum ds_type { #define DS1337_REG_CONTROL 0x0e # define DS1337_BIT_nEOSC 0x80 # define DS1339_BIT_BBSQI 0x20 +# define DS3231_BIT_BBSQW 0x40 /* same as BBSQI */ # define DS1337_BIT_RS2 0x10 # define DS1337_BIT_RS1 0x08 # define DS1337_BIT_INTCN 0x04 @@ -116,6 +118,9 @@ static const struct chip_desc chips[] = { }, [ds_1340] = { }, +[ds_3231] = { + .alarm = 1, +}, [m41t00] = { }, }; @@ -124,6 +129,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id ds1307_id[] = { { "ds1337", ds_1337 }, { "ds1338", ds_1338 }, { "ds1339", ds_1339 }, + { "ds3231", ds_3231 }, { "ds1340", ds_1340 }, { "m41t00", m41t00 }, { } @@ -265,6 +271,7 @@ static int ds1307_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *t) switch (ds1307->type) { case ds_1337: case ds_1339: + case ds_3231: buf[DS1307_REG_MONTH] |= DS1337_BIT_CENTURY; break; case ds_1340: @@ -534,6 +541,11 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct i2c_client *client, struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(client->dev.parent); int want_irq = false; unsigned char *buf; + const int bbsqi_bitpos[] = { + [ds_1337] = 0, + [ds_1339] = DS1339_BIT_BBSQI, + [ds_3231] = DS3231_BIT_BBSQW, + }; if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WRITE_BYTE_DATA | @@ -551,6 +563,7 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct i2c_client *client, switch (ds1307->type) { case ds_1337: case ds_1339: + case ds_3231: /* has IRQ? */ if (ds1307->client->irq > 0 && chip->alarm) { INIT_WORK(&ds1307->work, ds1307_work); @@ -570,12 +583,12 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct i2c_client *client, ds1307->regs[0] &= ~DS1337_BIT_nEOSC; /* Using IRQ? Disable the square wave and both alarms. - * For ds1339, be sure alarms can trigger when we're - * running on Vbackup (BBSQI); we assume ds1337 will - * ignore that bit + * For some variants, be sure alarms can trigger when we're + * running on Vbackup (BBSQI/BBSQW) */ if (want_irq) { - ds1307->regs[0] |= DS1337_BIT_INTCN | DS1339_BIT_BBSQI; + ds1307->regs[0] |= DS1337_BIT_INTCN + | bbsqi_bitpos[ds1307->type]; ds1307->regs[0] &= ~(DS1337_BIT_A2IE | DS1337_BIT_A1IE); } @@ -651,6 +664,7 @@ read_rtc: break; case ds_1337: case ds_1339: + case ds_3231: break; }
Add ds3231 variant. For that, the BBSQI usage was changed from a simple define into a lookup-array as it differs. This also removes writing to an unused bit in case of the ds1337. Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)