Message-ID: <1430858661.9365.20.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3 2/3] rtc: mediatek: Add MT6397 RTC driver
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
        Uwe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@mediatek.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 13:44:21 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20150505200010.GP4276@piout.net>
References: <1430206556-18254-1-git-send-email-eddie.huang@mediatek.com>
	 <1430206556-18254-3-git-send-email-eddie.huang@mediatek.com>
	 <20150505200010.GP4276@piout.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1601
Lines: 62

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 22:00 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This looks mostly good. Could you align the wrapped function parameters
> to the open parenthesis (use checkpatch --strict)?
> 
> On 28/04/2015 at 15:35:55 +0800, Eddie Huang wrote :
> > +static int mtk_rtc_write_trigger(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long timeout = jiffies + HZ;
> > +	int ret;
> > +	u32 data;
> > +
> > +	ret = regmap_write(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_WRTGR, 1);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		cpu_relax();
> > +		ret = regmap_read(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_BBPU,
> > +				&data);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			goto exit;
> > +	} while ((data & RTC_BBPU_CBUSY) && time_after(timeout, jiffies));
> > +
> 
> Shouldn't you return -ETIMEDOUT if the loop breaks because of time_after?

Probably yes.

I believe as written the time_after test is too much
for my little brain.  I would have used time_before
and reversed the args.

I suggest moving the time_after() test into the loop,
use break; and remove the exit label too.

Maybe something like:

	while (1) {
		ret = regmap_read(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_BBPU,
				  &data);
		if (ret < 0)
			break;
		if (!(data & RTC_BBPU_CBUSY))
			break;
		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
			ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
			break;
		}
		cpu_relax();
	}

	return ret;
}


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/