[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150722214446.GE14875@dtor-ws>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:44:46 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 4/4] RTC: switch to using is_visible() to
control sysfs attributes
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:57:35PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> (Krzysztof, be careful, Dmitry was not in copy of your maili, you should
> probably check your mailer config)
>
> On 21/07/2015 at 10:21:11 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
> > 2015-07-21 8:02 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>:
> > > static ssize_t
> > > -rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > +wakealarm_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > const char *buf, size_t n)
> > > {
> > > ssize_t retval;
> > > @@ -221,45 +209,58 @@ rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > retval = rtc_set_alarm(rtc, &alm);
> > > return (retval < 0) ? retval : n;
> > > }
> > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(wakealarm, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
> > > - rtc_sysfs_show_wakealarm, rtc_sysfs_set_wakealarm);
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(wakealarm);
> >
> > This and renaming of show/store functions look unrelated
> >
>
> I don't really mind that one but I would also prefer if it could be
> separated.
OK, I will.
>
> > >
> > > +static struct attribute *rtc_attrs[] = {
> > > + &dev_attr_name.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_date.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_time.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_since_epoch.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_max_user_freq.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_hctosys.attr,
> > > + &dev_attr_wakealarm.attr,
> > > + NULL,
> > > +};
> > >
> > > -/* The reason to trigger an alarm with no process watching it (via sysfs)
> > > +/*
> > > + * The reason to trigger an alarm with no process watching it (via sysfs)
> > > * is its side effect: waking from a system state like suspend-to-RAM or
> > > * suspend-to-disk. So: no attribute unless that side effect is possible.
> > > * (Userspace may disable that mechanism later.)
> > > */
> > > -static inline int rtc_does_wakealarm(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> > > +static bool rtc_does_wakealarm(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> > > {
> > > if (!device_can_wakeup(rtc->dev.parent))
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > return rtc->ops->set_alarm != NULL;
> > > }
> >
> > This looks unrelated too and confuses me. Could you split such cleanup
> > from main goal of the patch?
> >
>
> That one is bothering me too.
Will separate this too.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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