Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Jan 2019 18:29:31 +0200 | From | Matti Vaittinen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1 11/13] rtc: bd70528: Initial support for ROHM bd70528 RTC |
| |
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:48:21AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 1/22/19 1:47 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > + > > +static int bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528, int new_state, > > + int *old_state) > > Passed parameter is an int, not int *. I'd be quite surprised if this compiles > without warning. > > > +static int bd70528_re_enable_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528, > > + int old_state) // snip > > + return bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers(bd70528, old_state, NULL);
and
> > +static int bd70528_disable_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528, > > + int *old_state) // snip > > + return bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers(bd70528, 0, old_state);
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by that. Second parameter is int, third one is is int *.
> > +static int bd70528_re_enable_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528, > > + int old_state) > > +{ > > + if (bd70528->rtc_timer_lock) > > + mutex_unlock(bd70528->rtc_timer_lock); > > + > Unlock before calling bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers is odd, especially since it > is called after locking below. >
Yet another brainfart. Thanks for pointing this out! Will be fixed as well.
Br, Matti Vaittinen
-- Matti Vaittinen ROHM Semiconductors
~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then, he vanished ~~~
| |