lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 4/4] RTC: switch to using is_visible() to control sysfs attributes
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:57:35PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> (Krzysztof, be careful, Dmitry was not in copy of your maili, you should
> probably check your mailer config)
>
> On 21/07/2015 at 10:21:11 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
> > 2015-07-21 8:02 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
> > > static ssize_t
> > > -rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > +wakealarm_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > const char *buf, size_t n)
> > > {
> > > ssize_t retval;
> > > @@ -221,45 +209,58 @@ rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > retval = rtc_set_alarm(rtc, &alm);
> > > return (retval < 0) ? retval : n;
> > > }
> > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(wakealarm, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
> > > - rtc_sysfs_show_wakealarm, rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm);
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(wakealarm);
> >
> > This and renaming of show/store functions look unrelated
> >
>
> I don't really mind that one but I would also prefer if it could be
> separated.

OK, I will.

>
> > >
> > > +static struct attribute *rtc_attrs[] = {
> > > + &dev_attr_name.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_date.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_time.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_since_epoch.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_max_user_freq.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_hctosys.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_wakealarm.attr,
> > > + NULL,
> > > +};
> > >
> > > -/* The reason to trigger an alarm with no process watching it (via sysfs)
> > > +/*
> > > + * The reason to trigger an alarm with no process watching it (via sysfs)
> > > * is its side effect: waking from a system state like suspend-to-RAM or
> > > * suspend-to-disk. So: no attribute unless that side effect is possible.
> > > * (Userspace may disable that mechanism later.)
> > > */
> > > -static inline int rtc_does_wakealarm(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> > > +static bool rtc_does_wakealarm(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> > > {
> > > if (!device_can_wakeup(rtc->dev.parent))
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > return rtc->ops->set_alarm != NULL;
> > > }
> >
> > This looks unrelated too and confuses me. Could you split such cleanup
> > from main goal of the patch?
> >
>
> That one is bothering me too.

Will separate this too.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-23 00:01    [W:1.696 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site