[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFr9PXngqDMYNOsNSLNEq=sRY0JDhAn5H5vuMVZD2o1=W1iU_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 13:13:45 +0900
From: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rtc: msc313: Fix function prototype mismatch in msc313_rtc_probe()
Hi Kees,
On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 03:45, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> msc313_rtc_probe() was passing clk_disable_unprepare() directly, which
> did not have matching prototypes for devm_add_action_or_reset()'s
> callback argument. Refactor to use devm_clk_get_enabled() instead.
I didn't know devm_clk_get_enabled() existed. Learned something new. :)
Really nice that it fixes an issue and gets rid of a bunch of lines.
Anyhow, the change looks good to me, I build, boot and "does RTC still
work?" tested this so:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>
Tested-by: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>
Cheers,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists