Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alarmtimer: check RTC features instead of ops
In-Reply-To: <YIu7ZqowGScElHBr@piout.net>
References: <20210429214902.2612338-1-alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> <877dkkfdif.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <YIu7ZqowGScElHBr@piout.net>
Date:   Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:59:53 +0200
Message-ID: <871rasf8qe.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 30 2021 at 10:10, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 30/04/2021 09:16:40+0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29 2021 at 23:49, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> > Test RTC_FEATURE_ALARM instead of relying on ops->set_alarm to know whether
>> > alarms are available.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 7ae41220ef58 ("rtc: introduce features bitfield")
>> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
>> > ---
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > This doesn't seem much but this solve an issue where following a change in the
>> > RTC driver, this part of the code will think the RTC is alarm capable while it
>> > is not, then breaking the alarmtimer functionnality.
>> 
>> So a driver has the set_alarm() callback but does not advertise
>> RTC_FEATURE_ALARM for whatever reason and why ever this makes sense.
>> 
>
> No, it would be the other way around. The issue happens when you have
> two RTCs, rtc0 is not alarm capable and rtc1 has alarms.
>
> The driver for rtc0 used to not have .set_alarm() to signal it didn't
> support alarms, it then switched to RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, making the
> alarmtimer code select that RTC instead of rtc1, breaking suspend/resume
> on the platform.

I'm even more confused. So RTC0 does not have .set_alarm() but why does
it turn on RTC_FEATURE_ALARM? I'm obviously misinterpreting the above...

Thanks,

        tglx