[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <577B73FE.1020509@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:16:54 +0530
From: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...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 1/2] rtc: s3c: Remove unnecessary call to disable
already disabled clock
Hi Krzsztof,
On 07/05/2016 12:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 01:03 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> At the end of s3c_rtc_probe(), s3c_rtc_disable_clk() being called with rtc
>> clock already disabled, which looks extra and unnecessary call.
>> Lets clean it up.
>
> Does not look right. Till that place, the clocks are enabled. Then
> s3c_rtc_setaie() is called which expects that clocks are disabled...
> otherwise counters get mixed.
>
The clock is always disabled when it reach s3c_rtc_setfreq() in probe(),
because s3c_rtc_gettime() will always disable the clock.
As far as s3c_rtc_setaie() is concern, it enables clock while entering
and disables it while leaving the function. And in
s3c_rtc_{enable,disable}_clk() there is check info->clk_disabled flag
which will make sure clock balancing.
> So overall this looks like wrong approach unless I am missing something?
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
>> index d01ad7e..b083840 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
>> @@ -577,8 +577,6 @@ static int s3c_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> s3c_rtc_setfreq(info, 1);
>>
>> - s3c_rtc_disable_clk(info);
>> -
>> return 0;
>>
>> err_nortc:
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists