On 07/01/2022 19:30:29+0100, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
> The comments in cmos_read_alarm() and cmos_set_alarm() do not apply to
> current code, replace them.
>
> These comments were added in
> commit fbb974ba693b ("rtc: cmos: Do not export alarm rtc_ops when we do not support alarms")
> which introduced a separate struct rtc_class_ops, which was used when
> the device did not support RTC alarms. The functions cmos_read_alarm()
> and cmos_set_alarm() were called not only from the rtc_op struct, but
> also explicitly, so they had to independently check for RTC alarm
> support.
Isn't cmos_read_alarm still called directly from cmos_check_wkalrm and
cmos_suspend ?
>
> The separate rtc_class_ops structure was later removed in
> commit 30f5bd537fdb ("rtc: cmos: remove cmos_rtc_ops_no_alarm")
> but the comments remained and now are obsolete.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@xxxxx>
> Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> This patch applies cleanly on rtc-next.
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> index 7c006c2b125f..cd82eff2630a 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int cmos_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *t)
> .time = &t->time,
> };
>
> - /* This not only a rtc_op, but also called directly */
> + /* Fail if the RTC alarm is not supported */
> if (!is_valid_irq(cmos->irq))
> return -EIO;
>
> @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static int cmos_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *t)
> unsigned char rtc_control;
> int ret;
>
> - /* This not only a rtc_op, but also called directly */
> + /* Fail if the RTC alarm is not supported */
> if (!is_valid_irq(cmos->irq))
> return -EIO;
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
