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;
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 23:22:37 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com>,
        cw00.choi@samsung.com, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com,
        a.zummo@towertech.it, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: Remove some dead code
Message-ID: <YJxHHWvzppGHUbCW@piout.net>
References: <a6b23ee8d3ea78f62d3fda0b53aa273718f14c6d.1620452523.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
 <CAOc6etaUPtJqoH9DBDE72nDW7s7iEZHnaJRpKx9zFow02WOZig@mail.gmail.com>
 <9f34ebcd-0c17-cd7f-eb08-52c6c3dc7b03@wanadoo.fr>
 <CAOc6etYwTvVPnoB3BQfuQEikvsCwSs9AqBWnLFrs9zQ0pJGp1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YJhO0cEqpbJAdv7s@piout.net>
 <219efcc7-ca05-a7d1-5943-d34a42f0d49f@canonical.com>
 <YJv+mMRcOuTJxLuk@piout.net>
 <9535976d-1029-3668-4be4-c09068ccf84c@wanadoo.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9535976d-1029-3668-4be4-c09068ccf84c@wanadoo.fr>
Precedence: bulk

On 12/05/2021 22:02:17+0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > The only error path that will not print a message by default (it is
> > dev_dbg) is when rtc-ops is NULL which I don't expect would regress
> > anyway.
> > 
> > A better way to remove the dead code would be to switch to
> > devm_rtc_allocate_device/devm_rtc_register_device.
> 
> I don't follow you here.
> Isn't devm_rtc_device_register = devm_rtc_allocate_device +
> devm_rtc_register_device?
> 
> What would be the benefit for switch to the latter?
> 

The immediate benefit is that this solve a possible but very unlikely
race condition around the character device removal when probe ultimately
fails. The other benefit is that I won't have to do it later to handle
the modern features.

> 
> > And even better would
> > be to take that opportunity to set range_min and range_max ;)
> 
> Maybe, but this goes beyond my knowledge.
> I'll let someone else propose a patch for it.
> 
> CJ
> 

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com