From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: amelie.delaunay@st.com (Amelie DELAUNAY)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:07:16 +0100
Subject: [PATCHv3 3/8] rtc: add STM32 RTC driver
In-Reply-To: <20170111000803.mlie6kizcsj2o7lh@piout.net>
References: <1483623809-29937-1-git-send-email-amelie.delaunay@st.com>
 <1483623809-29937-4-git-send-email-amelie.delaunay@st.com>
 <20170111000803.mlie6kizcsj2o7lh@piout.net>
Message-ID: <1feb3a23-7450-2b5c-9c1c-c7ecacd7fa17@st.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Alexandre,

On 01/11/2017 01:08 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Looks good to me, however...
>
>
> On 05/01/2017 at 14:43:24 +0100, Amelie Delaunay wrote :
>> +struct stm32_rtc {
>> +	struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
>> +	void __iomem *base;
>> +	struct clk *ck_rtc;
>> +	spinlock_t lock; /* Protects registers accesses */
>
> This spinlock seems to be useless, the rtc ops_lock is already
> protecting everywhere it is taken.
>
After having a deeper look on ops_lock, it seems this one is sufficient, 
so I'll remove all spinlock uses in this driver.
>> +	int irq_alarm;
>> +};
>> +
>
> [...]
>
>> +static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>> +{
>> +	struct stm32_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +	struct rtc_time *tm = &alrm->time;
>> +	unsigned long irqflags;
>> +	unsigned int cr, isr, alrmar;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (rtc_valid_tm(tm)) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "Alarm time not valid.\n");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>
> This will never happen, tm is already checked multiple times (up to
> three) in the core before this function can be called.
>
You're right. I'll remove all rtc_valid_tm calls.
>> +	}
>> +
>
> You don't need to resend the whole series, just this patch. I'll take
> 2/8 and 3/8, the other ones can go through the stm32 tree.
>
Thanks for reviewing. I send a v4 for this patch right now.