Messages in this thread | | | From | Doug Anderson <> | Date | Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:32:28 -0800 | Subject | Re: [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
| |