[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100810134055.GC4268@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:40:55 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...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
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:00:55PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.
Well, I was assuming that you initially have all interrupts disabled...
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists