| Message ID | 1384795254-11996-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:20:54 +0100 Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote: > From: Linus Pizunski <linus@narrativeteam.com> > > Update month and day of month to the alarm month/day instead > of current day/month when setting the RTC alarm mask. > > Signed-off-by: Linus Pizunski <linus@narrativeteam.com> > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> I changed this to signed-off-by, as you were on the patch delivery path. > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c > @@ -220,6 +220,8 @@ static int at91_rtc_setalarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm) > > at91_alarm_year = tm.tm_year; > > + tm.tm_mon = alrm->time.tm_mon; > + tm.tm_mday = alrm->time.tm_mday; > tm.tm_hour = alrm->time.tm_hour; > tm.tm_min = alrm->time.tm_min; > tm.tm_sec = alrm->time.tm_sec; I queued this for 3.13. Do we think it warrants a -stable backport?
On 18/11/2013 23:37, Andrew Morton : > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:20:54 +0100 Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote: > >> From: Linus Pizunski <linus@narrativeteam.com> >> >> Update month and day of month to the alarm month/day instead >> of current day/month when setting the RTC alarm mask. >> >> Signed-off-by: Linus Pizunski <linus@narrativeteam.com> >> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> > > I changed this to signed-off-by, as you were on the patch delivery path. > >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c >> @@ -220,6 +220,8 @@ static int at91_rtc_setalarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm) >> >> at91_alarm_year = tm.tm_year; >> >> + tm.tm_mon = alrm->time.tm_mon; >> + tm.tm_mday = alrm->time.tm_mday; >> tm.tm_hour = alrm->time.tm_hour; >> tm.tm_min = alrm->time.tm_min; >> tm.tm_sec = alrm->time.tm_sec; > > I queued this for 3.13. Do we think it warrants a -stable backport? (I am late, but it seems this one is not sent to Linus yet...) Well, yes, we can tag this one for "-stable". The patch applies on nearly each kernel that I can think about (code is from 2.6.17-ish). But this patch applies with an offset... Best regards,
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c index 8b2cd8a5a2ff..0dc0809adbf2 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c @@ -220,6 +220,8 @@ static int at91_rtc_setalarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm) at91_alarm_year = tm.tm_year; + tm.tm_mon = alrm->time.tm_mon; + tm.tm_mday = alrm->time.tm_mday; tm.tm_hour = alrm->time.tm_hour; tm.tm_min = alrm->time.tm_min; tm.tm_sec = alrm->time.tm_sec;