RTC: RK808: fix the rtc time reading issue

Commit Message

Andrew Morton Jan. 14, 2015, 10:53 p.m. UTC

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800 Sonny Rao <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Sonny,
> >
> >> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
> >> and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
> >> certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set.   I'm not
> >> sure how long it actually takes, but why not just put in a usleep()
> >> for the minimum wait time?
> >
> > I think we are safe.
> >
> > At 400kHz (the max speed of this part) each bit can be transferred no
> > faster than 2.5us.  In order to do a valid i2c transaction we need to
> > _at least_ write the address of the device and the data onto the bus,
> > which is 16 bits.  16 * 2.5us = 40us.  That's above the 31.25us
> >
> > Personally I think what Chris has is fine, with the comment.
> 
> Ok, I'm fine with that if we're sure it's slow enough.  Comment
> explaining would certainly help.

Thanks, all.  I did this:

Comments

Doug Anderson Jan. 14, 2015, 10:56 p.m. UTC | #1

Andrew,

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Morton
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800 Sonny Rao <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Sonny,
>> >
>> >> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
>> >> and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
>> >> certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set.   I'm not
>> >> sure how long it actually takes, but why not just put in a usleep()
>> >> for the minimum wait time?
>> >
>> > I think we are safe.
>> >
>> > At 400kHz (the max speed of this part) each bit can be transferred no
>> > faster than 2.5us.  In order to do a valid i2c transaction we need to
>> > _at least_ write the address of the device and the data onto the bus,
>> > which is 16 bits.  16 * 2.5us = 40us.  That's above the 31.25us
>> >
>> > Personally I think what Chris has is fine, with the comment.
>>
>> Ok, I'm fine with that if we're sure it's slow enough.  Comment
>> explaining would certainly help.
>
> Thanks, all.  I did this:
>
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rk808.c~rtc-rk808-fix-the-rtc-time-reading-issue-fix
> +++ a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rk808.c
> @@ -73,10 +73,11 @@ static int rk808_rtc_readtime(struct dev
>                 return ret;
>         }
>
> -       /* After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time couldn't be read
> -        * immediately, we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of
> +       /*
> +        * After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time can't be read
> +        * immediately. So we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of
>          * 32khz. If we clear the GET_TIME bit here, the time of i2c transfer
> -        * certainly more than 31.25us.
> +        * certainly more than 31.25us: 16 * 2.5us at 400kHz bus frequency.
>          */
>         ret = regmap_update_bits(rk808->regmap, RK808_RTC_CTRL_REG,
>                                  BIT_RTC_CTRL_REG_RTC_GET_TIME,

Looks great to me, thanks.

-Doug

Patch

--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rk808.c~rtc-rk808-fix-the-rtc-time-reading-issue-fix
+++ a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rk808.c
@@ -73,10 +73,11 @@  static int rk808_rtc_readtime(struct dev
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	/* After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time couldn't be read
-	 * immediately, we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of
+	/*
+	 * After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time can't be read
+	 * immediately. So we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of
 	 * 32khz. If we clear the GET_TIME bit here, the time of i2c transfer
-	 * certainly more than 31.25us.
+	 * certainly more than 31.25us: 16 * 2.5us at 400kHz bus frequency.
 	 */
 	ret = regmap_update_bits(rk808->regmap, RK808_RTC_CTRL_REG,
 				 BIT_RTC_CTRL_REG_RTC_GET_TIME,