From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755307AbbBLIYJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:24:09 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:35046 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751610AbbBLIYH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:24:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:23:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Introduce mode specific callbacks
Message-ID: <20150212082359.GJ2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <025ca1872df9ed8a9f7b6e0400e71ed296374183.1423034839.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <20150210141541.GB7119@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKohpomhTO=ZaOAm8Q4dyX0=1vYOktm_y=u-++dNtgGm8j172A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150211103845.GR23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKohpo=0cG1Bo8NgcrMVTLo=bDnUoD-R8fY5XKT=22X8bzRv2A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKohpo=0cG1Bo8NgcrMVTLo=bDnUoD-R8fY5XKT=22X8bzRv2A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:09:30AM +0800, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 February 2015 at 18:38, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > I think its better to be strict; esp. with new interfaces. It avoids
> > confusion.
> >
> > Suppose a driver writer sees these new methods and thinks to use one
> > while still having the set_mode() one -- ie. he didn't actually read the
> > comment. We'd better make sure he fails and goes back to read it.
> 
> Okay, does below diff looks good to you ?
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> index e646fbe44b05..75d221c7e9cc 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> @@ -444,8 +444,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clockevents_unbind);
>  static int clockevents_sanity_check(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>  {
>         /* Legacy set_mode() callback */
> -       if (dev->set_mode)
> +       if (dev->set_mode) {
> +               /* We shouldn't be supporting new modes now */
> +               WARN_ON(dev->set_mode_periodic || dev->set_mode_oneshot ||
> +                       dev->set_mode_shutdown || dev->set_mode_resume);
>                 return 0;
> +       }
> 
>         if (dev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY)
>                 return 0;

Yep, that looks entirely reasonable.