[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191129085500.GV299836@piout.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:55:00 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc: lee.jones@...aro.org, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
phh@....me, b.galvani@...il.com, stefan@...er.ch,
letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t619: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver
On 29/11/2019 07:59:40+0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > > + /* disable interrupt */
> > > + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + return err;
> >
> > Is it really useful to disable the alarm to reenable them later?
> >
> Well, yes, seems to be nonsense.
> Am I right that I do not need to prevent alarm irqs between
> alloc() and register()?
>
That's fine, the core will be ready to handle alarms after alloc()
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists