Hi, Alexandre > On 19/07/2019 19:04:21+0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 02:57 +0000, Anson Huang wrote: > > > > > > > I do worry that handling the irq before the rtc device is > > > > registered could still result in a crash. From what I saw, the > > > > irq path in snvs only uses driver state members that are fully > > > > initialized for the most part, and the allocated but unregistered > > > > data->rtc is only used in one call to rtc_update_irq(), which appears to > be ok with this. > > > > > > > > But it is not that hard to imagine that something could go into > > > > the rtc core that assumes call like rtc_update_irq() are only made on > registered devices. > > > > > > > > If there was a way to do it, I think allocating the irq in a > > > > masked state and then unmasking it as part of the final > > > > registration call to make the device go live would be a safer and more > general pattern. > > > > > > It makes sense, I think we can just move the devm_request_irq() to > > > after rtc_register_device(), It will make sure everything is ready before > IRQ is enabled. Will send out a V2 patch. > > > > That will mean registering the rtc, then unregistering it if the irq > > request fails. More of a pain to write this failure path. > > > > Alexandre, is it part of rtc core design that rtc_update_irq() might > > be called on a rtc device that is properly allocated, but not > > registered yet? > > Yes, the main reason of the change of API was exactly to handle this. What about this patch's status? Should we continue or any change needed? https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1132481/ Thanks, Anson
