Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.au@gmail.com>,
        "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] alarmtimer: Fix rebind failure
In-Reply-To: <TYCPR01MB112693065867ACA9C42370B9F86CCA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20230922081208.26334-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
 <87il7fq1al.ffs@tglx>
 <TYCPR01MB112697A5D4B57101CDE27C88D86CEA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <87fs2jpznr.ffs@tglx>
 <TYCPR01MB11269C6BF3934F9AAC44F855186CEA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <87bkd7pic3.ffs@tglx>
 <TYCPR01MB11269FF2DBFDC96B9C12D2E5E86CDA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <87o7h6o6d1.ffs@tglx>
 <CAMuHMdVJnqkF7xmjfOyoxE_Lq=AO85CDD85qu3O+xcSr-3BLTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <TYCPR01MB112693065867ACA9C42370B9F86CCA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:12:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87r0m1ldza.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 11 2023 at 06:58, Biju Das wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:16=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix=
.de> wrote:
>>=20
>> The "if (alarmtimer_get_rtcdev()) { ... }" you pointed out in the probe
>> function  seems to be rather fragile, as it depends on probe order. And
>> both CHARGER_MANAGER and RTC_DRV_88PM860X can be modular.
>
> Does it mean that current patch is fine?  On normal scenario, no one
> will remove RTC device, so nothing to worry about battery charger. On
> exceptional cases if anyone wants to remove RTC driver, this patch
> will help(for eg: checking resource leak remove/unbind followed by
> modprobe/bind).

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Allowing removal of a registered RTC alarm device is a user space
visible change as it violates the assumption that an armed alarm timer
is actually functional.

So unless you provide a proper analysis why this does not matter, this
is going nowhere.

Thanks,

        tglx