[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <577B6CD9.80605@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:16:25 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com, javier@....samsung.com,
pankaj.dubey@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] rtc: s3c: Add s3c_rtc_{enable/disable}_clk in
s3c_rtc_setfreq()
On 07/04/2016 01:03 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> As per code flow it is possible that s3c_rtc_setfreq() might get called
> with rtc clock disabled and in set_freq we perform h/w registers read/write,
> which might results in a kernel crash while probing rtc driver.
> Below is one such case:
> s3c_rtc_probe()
> clk_prepare_enable(info->rtc_clk) // rtc clock enabled
> s3c_rtc_gettime() // will enable clk if not done, and disable it upon exit
> s3c_rtc_setfreq() //then this will be called with clk disabled
The indentation suggests levels of calls (chain) not sequence. This
should be:
s3c_rtc_probe()
clk_prepare_enable(info->rtc_clk) // rtc clock enabled
s3c_rtc_gettime() // will enable clk if not done, and disable it upon exit
s3c_rtc_setfreq() //then this will be called with clk disabled
>
> This patch take cares of such issue by adding s3c_rtc_{enable/disable}_clk in
> s3c_rtc_setfreq().
What I don't get is that you wrote "it is *possible* that
s3c_rtc_setfreq() *might* get called". From my understanding this will
happen always because src_rtc_gettime() always disables the clocks.
Why it does not happen always?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists