lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of RTC device
Hi,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:47 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner (2020-01-15 02:07:09)
> > 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
> >
>
> Ok. Should __ws also be checked for error? I'm currently thinking of this patch
> and then simplifying it in patch 3 of this series by removing __ws. Or
> the series can swap patch 2 and 3.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> index ccb6aea4f1d4..3e1f4056e384 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct device *dev,
> pdev = platform_device_register_data(dev, "alarmtimer", -1, NULL, 0);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rtcdev_lock, flags);
> - if (!rtcdev) {
> + if (__ws && pdev && !rtcdev) {

I believe instead of pdev you want !IS_ERR(pdev)

...otherwise this seems sane. I ran out of time last night to get to
patch #3 and #4 but I'll look at them shortly. I don't have tons of
opinions for the ordering questions, so whatever seems cleanest?

-Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-15 20:33    [W:0.081 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site