linux-kernel - RE: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 1/2] rtc: rtc-lpc32xx: Introduce RTC driver for the LPC32XX SoC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <083DF309106F364B939360100EC290F80AC6E5F76D@eu1rdcrdc1wx030.exi.nxp.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:08:16 +0200
From:	Kevin Wells <kevin.wells@....com>
To:	Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>,
	"rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Durgesh Pattamatta <durgesh.pattamatta@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.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 Zongshun,

Thanks for helping review this.

> Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 1/2] rtc: rtc-lpc32xx: Introduce RTC driver
> for the LPC32XX SoC
> 
> Hi Kevin ,
> 
> This is really a natty rtc patch:).

From the urban dictionary...
"natty"
1) originating from rastafarian culture. meaning 'good','cool' and
most importantly, 'elite'.
2) A slang for Natural Light beer, a favorite of poor college students
the world over.

I hope it's the first one, but I guess the 2nd isn't that bad if
you’re a college student o)
I'll merge both patches into a single patch for v2 and repost in a
few days.

> > +       /* Disable alarm during update */
> > +       tmp = rtc_readl(rtc, RTC_CTRL);
> > +       rtc_writel(rtc, RTC_CTRL, tmp & ~RTC_MATCH0_EN);
> > +
> > +       rtc->alarm_enabled = wkalrm->enabled = 1;
> > +       if (wkalrm->enabled) {
> > +               rtc_writel(rtc, RTC_MATCH0, alarmsecs);
> > +               rtc_writel(rtc, RTC_INTSTAT, RTC_MATCH0_INT_STS);
> > +               rtc_writel(rtc, RTC_CTRL, tmp | RTC_MATCH0_EN);
> > +       }
> 
> I think this 'wkalrm->enabled ' will always be set '1', so 'if'
> condition will be alway true?

Thanks for catching this. The '= 1' assignment shouldn't be there.