On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:48:21AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/22/19 1:47 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > +
> > +static int bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528, int
> > new_state,
> > + int *old_state)
>
> Passed parameter is an int, not int *. I'd be quite surprised if this compiles
> without warning.
>
> > +static int bd70528_re_enable_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > + int old_state)
// snip
> > + return bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers(bd70528, old_state, NULL);
and
> > +static int bd70528_disable_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > + int *old_state)
// snip
> > + return bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers(bd70528, 0, old_state);
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by that. Second parameter is int,
third one is is int *.
> > +static int bd70528_re_enable_rtc_based_timers(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > + int old_state)
> > +{
> > + if (bd70528->rtc_timer_lock)
> > + mutex_unlock(bd70528->rtc_timer_lock);
> > +
> Unlock before calling bd70528_set_rtc_based_timers is odd, especially since it
> is called after locking below.
>
Yet another brainfart. Thanks for pointing this out! Will be fixed as
well.
Br,
Matti Vaittinen
--
Matti Vaittinen
ROHM Semiconductors
~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then, he vanished ~~~
