Hi,

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:57:51 +0100
Alexandre Belloni [off-list ref] wrote:

Hello,

checkpatch.pl --strict complains about multiple blank lines and alignment.

I have not used the strict flag there. But I think I can make
--strict happy.

On 31/10/2019 22:38:35+0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:

quoted

+static int rc5t619_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+	struct rn5t618 *rn5t618 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
+	struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc;
+	uint8_t alarm_flag;
+	unsigned int ctrl2;
+	int err;
+
+	rtc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*rtc), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (IS_ERR(rtc)) {
+		err = PTR_ERR(rtc);
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	rtc->rn5t618 = rn5t618;
+
+	dev_set_drvdata(dev, rtc);
+	rtc->irq = -1;
+
+	if (rn5t618->irq_data)
+		rtc->irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(rn5t618->irq_data,
+				RN5T618_IRQ_RTC);
+
+	if (rtc->irq  < 0) {
+		dev_err(dev, "no irq specified, wakeup is disabled\n");  

I don't think it is worth having an error message here, especially since
you have a second one later.

agreed.

quoted

+		rtc->irq = -1;
+	}
+
+	err = regmap_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL2, &ctrl2);
+	if (err < 0)
+		return err;
+
+	/* get interrupt flag */
+	err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_is_enabled(dev, &alarm_flag);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	/* disable rtc periodic function */
+	err = rc5t619_rtc_periodic_disable(&pdev->dev);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	/* disable interrupt */
+	err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);
+	if (err)
+		return err;  

Is it really useful to disable the alarm to reenable them later?

Well, yes, seems to be nonsense.
Am I right that I do not need to prevent alarm irqs between
alloc() and register()?

quoted

+
+	if (ctrl2 & CTRL2_PON) {
+		alarm_flag = 0;
+		err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_flag_clr(&pdev->dev);
+		if (err)
+			return err;
+	}
+
+	rtc->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
+  

Please remove this blank line.

Ok.

quoted

+	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc)) {
+		err = PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc);
+		dev_err(dev, "RTC device register: err %d\n", err);
+		return err;
+	}
+
+	rtc->rtc->ops = &rc5t619_rtc_ops;
+	rtc->rtc->range_min = RTC_TIMESTAMP_BEGIN_1900;
+	rtc->rtc->range_max = RTC_TIMESTAMP_END_2099;
+
+	/* set interrupt and enable it */
+	if (rtc->irq != -1) {
+		device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
+
+		err = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev,
rtc->irq, NULL,
+						rc5t619_rtc_irq,
+						IRQF_ONESHOT,
+						"rtc-rc5t619",
+						&pdev->dev);
+		if (err < 0) {
+			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "request IRQ:%d
fail\n", rtc->irq);
+			rtc->irq = -1;
+
+			err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev,
0);
+			if (err)
+				return err;
+
+		} else {
+			/* enable wake */  

I think you should move device_init_wakeup() here, unless your parse
the wakeup-source property.

yes, makes sense.

quoted

+			enable_irq_wake(rtc->irq);
+			/* enable alarm_d */
+			err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev,
alarm_flag);
+			if (err) {
+				dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed rtc
setup\n");
+				return -EBUSY;
+			}
+		}
+	} else {
+		/* system don't want to using alarm interrupt, so
close it */
+		err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "disable rtc alarm
error\n");  

I don't think this message is necessary.

yes, agreed, that would be just another symptom of an i2c problem.

quoted

+			return err;
+		}
+
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "ricoh61x interrupt is
disabled\n");  

Maybe dev_warn as the driver just continues on.

Ok.

Regards,
Andreas