From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413FAC43461 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06F9221F1 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725913AbgIKMiI (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:38:08 -0400 Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.231]:36723 "EHLO relay11.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725916AbgIKM2s (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:28:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (lfbn-lyo-1-1908-165.w90-65.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.65.88.165]) (Authenticated sender: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com) by relay11.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 445B910000B; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:28:37 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , Alessandro Zummo , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] rtc: rx8010: fix indentation in probe() Message-ID: <20200911122837.GC230586@piout.net> References: <20200904152116.2157-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200904152116.2157-8-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200904154144.GL230586@piout.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/09/2020 11:34:59+0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM Alexandre Belloni > wrote: > > > > On 04/09/2020 17:21:15+0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski > > > > > > Align the arguments passed to devm_rtc_device_register() with the upper > > > line. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski > > > --- > > > drivers/rtc/rtc-rx8010.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rx8010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-rx8010.c > > > index 181fc21cefa8..ed8ba38b4991 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rx8010.c > > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-rx8010.c > > > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int rx8010_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > > } > > > > > > rx8010->rtc = devm_rtc_device_register(&client->dev, client->name, > > > - &rx8010_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE); > > > + &rx8010_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE); > > > > > > > You have bonus points if you replace that patch by switching from > > devm_rtc_device_register to devm_rtc_allocate_device and > > rtc_register_device. > > > > More bonus points if you also set range_min and range_max and then get > > rid of the range checking in set_time. > > > > Hi Alexandre! > > I've just looked at the code and wondered why there's no devm > counterpart for rtc_register_device(). Then I noticed that the release > callback for devm_rtc_allocate_device() takes care of unregistering > the device. This looks like serious devres abuse to me. In general the > idea is for the release callback to only undo whatever the devres > function did and this should be opaque to the concerned resources. > > In this case I believe there's no need for the 'registered' field in > struct rtc_device - this structure should *not* care about this - and > there should be devm_rtc_register_device() whose release callback > would take care of the unregistering. Since this function would be > called after devm_rtc_allocate_device(), it would be released before > so the ordering should be fine. > Note that the input subsystem is also doing it that way which is probably not a good reason alone to do it like that. But, IIRC, there was an actual reason this was done this way and it was the ordering of the rtc_nvmem_register/rtc_nvmem_unregister with rtc_device_unregister. I'm not sure this is still necessary though. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com