Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:25:01 +0100
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     lee.jones@linaro.org, a.zummo@towertech.it,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        phh@phh.me, b.galvani@gmail.com, stefan@agner.ch,
        letux-kernel@openphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t619: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver
Message-ID: <20191129122501.6cecc7f2@kemnade.info>
In-Reply-To: <20191129085500.GV299836@piout.net>
References: <20191031213835.11390-1-andreas@kemnade.info>
        <20191031213835.11390-6-andreas@kemnade.info>
        <20191128105751.GM299836@piout.net>
        <20191129075940.3b1c2631@kemnade.info>
        <20191129085500.GV299836@piout.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:55:00 +0100
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> 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()
> 
ok, will clean that up and probably produce a -v3 this evening.

Regards,
Andreas