Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 4/4] RTC: switch to using is_visible() to control sysfs attributes

[Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>]

(Krzysztof, be careful, Dmitry was not in copy of your maili, you should
probably check your mailer config)

On 21/07/2015 at 10:21:11 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
> 2015-07-21 8:02 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
> >  static ssize_t
> > -rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > +wakealarm_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> >                 const char *buf, size_t n)
> >  {
> >         ssize_t retval;
> > @@ -221,45 +209,58 @@ rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> >         retval = rtc_set_alarm(rtc, &alm);
> >         return (retval < 0) ? retval : n;
> >  }
> > -static DEVICE_ATTR(wakealarm, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
> > -               rtc_sysfs_show_wakealarm, rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm);
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(wakealarm);
> 
> This and renaming of show/store functions look unrelated
> 

I don't really mind that one but I would also prefer if it could be
separated.

> >
> > +static struct attribute *rtc_attrs[] = {
> > +       &dev_attr_name.attr,
> > +       &dev_attr_date.attr,
> > +       &dev_attr_time.attr,
> > +       &dev_attr_since_epoch.attr,
> > +       &dev_attr_max_user_freq.attr,
> > +       &dev_attr_hctosys.attr,
> > +       &dev_attr_wakealarm.attr,
> > +       NULL,
> > +};
> >
> > -/* The reason to trigger an alarm with no process watching it (via sysfs)
> > +/*
> > + * The reason to trigger an alarm with no process watching it (via sysfs)
> >   * is its side effect:  waking from a system state like suspend-to-RAM or
> >   * suspend-to-disk.  So: no attribute unless that side effect is possible.
> >   * (Userspace may disable that mechanism later.)
> >   */
> > -static inline int rtc_does_wakealarm(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> > +static bool rtc_does_wakealarm(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> >  {
> >         if (!device_can_wakeup(rtc->dev.parent))
> > -               return 0;
> > +               return false;
> > +
> >         return rtc->ops->set_alarm != NULL;
> >  }
> 
> This looks unrelated too and confuses me. Could you split such cleanup
> from main goal of the patch?
> 

That one is bothering me too.



-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com