[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4E142659020000780004C50D@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:09:45 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: <mingo@...e.hu>, <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>, <dannf@...com>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable rtc-efi
>>> On 05.07.11 at 20:29, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:38:51AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Besides a Kconfig change this just requires creating a respective
>> platform device.
>
> Couple of other issues:
>
>> +static struct platform_device rtc_efi_dev = {
>> + .name = "rtc-efi",
>> + .id = -1,
>> +};
>
> You haven't removed this from the IA64 code. Isn't that going to result
> in registering the same device twice?
How would code under arch/ia64/ and code under arch/x86/ ever
manage to register the same device twice?
>> +static int __init rtc_init(void)
>> +{
>> + if (efi_enabled && platform_device_register(&rtc_efi_dev) < 0)
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "unable to register rtc device...\n");
>
> Ought to -ENODEV if efi isn't present? The error message should also be
> more verbose.
I would agree on the -ENODEV part, but the error message is what
the original ia64 code (which I simply copied over and modified
slightly) has, so if a change is needed it ought to be done there first
I would think. Additionally I can't really see what meaningful addition
to the error message you envision.
Jan
--
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