[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100810120055.GD11268@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:00:55 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc: rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
Durgesh Pattamatta <durgesh.pattamatta@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Kevin Wells <wellsk40@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 1/2] rtc: rtc-lpc32xx: Introduce RTC driver
for the LPC32XX SoC
Hi Wolfram,
> > + retval = request_irq(rtc->irq, lpc32xx_rtc_alarm_interrupt,
> > + IRQF_DISABLED, "rtcalarm", rtc);
> > + if (retval < 0) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't request interrupt\n");
> > + goto err_free_irq;
> > + }
>
> I saw that a number of rtc-drivers register their irq after they
> register the device. I wonder if this is OK here? Couldn't it happen
> that after rtc_device_register() there is a preemption and another
> process could set the alarm? Then there is a race between interrupts
> already enabled and no handler available, no?
If you do it the other way around the irq might trigger and the handler
reports an irq for a device that doesn't exist yet.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists