Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtc: mediatek: Add MT63xx RTC driver

["Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>]

Hello Eddie,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:31:14PM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 16:30 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:27:56PM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > +static u16 rtc_read(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc, u32 offset)
> > rtc_read is a bad name for a driver. There are already 6 functions with
> > this name in the kernel. Better use a unique prefix.
> 
> I will use prefix mtk_
I would prefer a prefix that is unique to the driver. "mtk_" doesn't
work to distinguish between the rtc and a (say) spi driver. What you
want here is that if someone reports a bug on any mailinglist with a
backtrace you are able to immediately see which driver is affected.

> > > [...]
> > > +static irqreturn_t rtc_irq_handler_thread(int irq, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = data;
> > > +	u16 irqsta, irqen;
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > > +	irqsta = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_STA);
> > Do you really need to lock for a single read access?
> 
> I think this lock is necessary, because other thread may access rtc
> register at the same time, for example, call mtk_rtc_set_alarm to modify
> alarm time.
That would be a valid reason if mtk_rtc_set_alarm touched that register
twice in a single critical section and the handler must not read the
value of the first write. Otherwise it should be fine, shouldn't it?

> > > +static int mtk_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > +
> > > +	tm->tm_year -= RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> > > +	tm->tm_mon++;
> > > +	mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > > +	rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_YEA, tm->tm_year);
> > > +	rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_MTH, tm->tm_mon);
> > > +	rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_DOM, tm->tm_mday);
> > > +	rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_HOU, tm->tm_hour);
> > > +	rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_MIN, tm->tm_min);
> > > +	rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC, tm->tm_sec);
> > Is this racy? I.e. what happens if RTC_TC_SEC overflows just before you
> > write to it but after you wrote RTC_TC_MIN?
> 
> register value will write to hardware after rtc_write_trigger, so the
> racy condition not exist.
Ah, it seems the hardware guys did their job. Nice.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html