Devicetree
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Antoni Pokusinski" <apokusinski01@gmail.com>
Cc: robh@kernel.org,
	"Alexandre Belloni" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] rtc: abx80x: add irq to struct abx80x_priv
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:04:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260731190450.548A81F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260731184831.44037-5-apokusinski01@gmail.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Read-modify-write of the status register introduces a race condition that loses interrupts.
- [High] Unconditional failure in `abx80x_read_alarm` due to incorrect handling of `i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data` return value.
--

--- Patch [4]: [PATCH v3 4/8] rtc: abx80x: add irq to struct abx80x_priv ---
commit be354d8ef94de08e1314876fad55888243ca019f
Author: Antoni Pokusinski <apokusinski01@gmail.com>

rtc: abx80x: add irq to struct abx80x_priv
    
This adds the irq field to struct abx80x_priv so the interrupt number is not
strictly tied to the i2c_client structure. This allows it to be more easily
accessed for ABX81X SPI clocks.

> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c
> @@ -299,11 +300,12 @@ static irqreturn_t abx80x_handle_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but I noticed a potential race condition with
the status register.

In abx80x_handle_irq(), there is a read-modify-write sequence:

	status = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, ABX8XX_REG_STATUS);
	...
	i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, ABX8XX_REG_STATUS,
				  status & ~(ABX8XX_STATUS_AF | ABX8XX_STATUS_WDT));

If a hardware interrupt (such as an RTC alarm or watchdog) sets a new flag
in ABX8XX_REG_STATUS exactly between the read and write calls, wouldn't the
write operation write back a 0 for the newly set bit and inadvertently clear
it without handling it?

This same pattern appears to be present in abx80x_ioctl() as well:

	tmp = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, ABX8XX_REG_STATUS,
					status);

Could this cause hardware interrupts or status flags to be silently dropped?

>  static int abx80x_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *t)
>  {
>  	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> +	struct abx80x_priv *priv = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>  	unsigned char buf[7];
>  
>  	int irq_mask, err;
>  
> -	if (client->irq <= 0)
> +	if (priv->irq <= 0)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	err = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(client, ABX8XX_REG_ASC,

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this error check work
as intended?

i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data() returns the number of bytes read (which
would be 7) on success.

Looking at the code just below this in abx80x_read_alarm():

	err = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(client, ABX8XX_REG_ASC,
					    sizeof(buf), buf);
	if (err)
		return err;

Wouldn't this evaluate to true on a successful read, causing the function
to prematurely abort and pass the byte count back as an error code?

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260731184831.44037-1-apokusinski01@gmail.com?part=4

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-31 19:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-31 18:48 [PATCH v3 0/8] rtc: abx80x: add support for abx81x Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] dt-bindings: rtc: abx80x: document ABX81X RTCs Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 18:57   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] rtc: abx80x: add mutex protection for register writes Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:02   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] rtc: abx80x: properly handle shared IRQs Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:05   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] rtc: abx80x: add irq to struct abx80x_priv Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:04   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] rtc: abx80x: use regmap instead of I2C specific API Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:05   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] rtc: abx80x: replace read-modify-write pattern with regmap helpers Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:01   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] rtc: abx80x: create abx80x_i2c_probe() Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:02   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 18:48 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] rtc: abx80x: add support for ABX81X Antoni Pokusinski
2026-07-31 19:05   ` sashiko-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260731190450.548A81F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=apokusinski01@gmail.com \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox