Messages in this thread | | | From | Doug Anderson <> | Date | Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:22:26 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of RTC device |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 7:59 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote: > >> diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c > >> index 4b11f0309eee..ccb6aea4f1d4 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c > >> +++ b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c > >> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev, > >> unsigned long flags; > >> struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev); > >> struct wakeup_source *__ws; > >> + struct platform_device *pdev; > >> int ret = 0; > >> > >> if (rtcdev) > >> @@ -99,6 +100,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev, > >> return -1; > >> > >> __ws = wakeup_source_register(dev, "alarmtimer"); > >> + pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer", -1, NULL, 0); > > > > Don't you need to check for an error here? If pdev is an error you'll > > continue on your merry way. Before your patch if you got an error > > registering the device it would have caused probe to fail. > > Yes, that return value should be checked > > > I guess you'd only want it to be an error if "rtcdev" is NULL? > > If rtcdev is not NULL then this code is not reached. See the begin of > this function :)
Wow, not sure how I missed that. I guess the one at the top of the function is an optimization, though? It's being accessed without the spinlock which means that it's not necessarily reliable, right? I guess once the rtcdev has been set then it is never unset, but it does seem like if two threads could call alarmtimer_rtc_add_device() at the same time then it's possible that we could end up calling wakeup_source_register() for both of them. Did I understand that correctly? If I did then maybe it deserves a comment?
-Doug
| |